ADVERTISEMENT

Teflon Terry Lies.........again!

joelbc1

HR King
Gold Member
Sep 5, 2007
82,827
49,803
113
you can’t always get what you want!
While a candidate running for election 5 years ago, Terry Branstad, aka Teflon Terry, rallied his supporters over the fact that government should not be the one's who choose winners and losers. Many here applauded his statement, although contrary to how Branstad has ever governed.
Now Branstad is pursuing his latest efforts to reward those who support him by raping the Iowa MedicAid fund of over $560M and awarding it to "the private sector" to more efficiently manage Iowa's MedicAid program....this is the LARGEST fund of government money in Iowa's budget. It does not require legislative approval, either.
So Teflon, in his infinite wisdom, is going to award management administration of Iowa MedicAid to 3 or 4 "private" management firms, that require atleast 15% of the funds total $4.2 B to administer the program. The State of Iowa , who currently manages the program runs 4-6% for administrative costs of oversight. So, basicaly Teflon is removing 10% of the money that would be used for MedicAid patient treatment and giving it to private managers. This is TAX money that is being taken from the public and given to the private sector. The result of this act is very simple to forsee. Patients who use MedicAid will be denied services previously administered to make up for the lost MedicAid money. So, Teflon is in fact choosing winners (the new private managers of MedicAid) and he is choosing losers...those who rely on MedicAid for needed medical and psychological treatment. The New managed care program will never "deny" treatment for its members. It will just refuse to pay for the treatment recommended by the physicians/providers involved.
This is just an extension of the radical right's attack on anything done by the State. The fact is, the only "money" in MedicAid is in the management of the program. As you know, providers (clinics, hospitals, doctors, therapists) for MedicAid are harder to find because compensation for services is often unprofitable. This is NOT going to change. What will change though is the amount of money that will be available for services rendered. Because more of the pie is going to administrative fees, less will be available for patient care.
And the people of Iowa who elected Teflon, say nothing. I will remind you that perhaps the greatest meassure of a society is how well it cares for those who cannot care for themselves. Iowans and Terry choose not to care for them as well as they have in the past.
The Iowa Senate (Democratic controlled) voted for an oversight committee to oversee the transition from State to private management. The Iowa House (GOP controlled) voted against such a committee. God have mercy on our souls! The confusion in registration starts in July. I hope if any of you who have loved ones on Iowa MedicAid are aware of the fun you will be enjoying the back half of this year.
This is a big deal to me. This is perhaps the most overt money grab any governor of the State of Iowa has ever attempted. And no one really seems to give a shit. However, if Culver would have done this all hell would have broken loose!
 
"You can keep your plan. Period. You can keep your doctor. Period."

For now. Then the cost cutting will start. I am not against cost cutting, just against it hurting societies most vulnerable. We aren't just talking about deadbeats, here. We are talking about the elderly and the handicapped for example. In a state with a lot of rural areas what will be the benefit to the managing companies to make sure they are staffed to travel to small towns? What benefit is it to them to make sure recipients are on top of all their paperwork? Lot's of these folks need help negotiating the claims process, and that'll be the first thing that goes. But, since they aren't a large voting block it'll be easy to ignore them.
 
For now. Then the cost cutting will start. I am not against cost cutting, just against it hurting societies most vulnerable. We aren't just talking about deadbeats, here. We are talking about the elderly and the handicapped for example. In a state with a lot of rural areas what will be the benefit to the managing companies to make sure they are staffed to travel to small towns? What benefit is it to them to make sure recipients are on top of all their paperwork? Lot's of these folks need help negotiating the claims process, and that'll be the first thing that goes. But, since they aren't a large voting block it'll be easy to ignore them.
Lucas...it is NOT "cost cutting"...it is reducing services to MedicAid patients and their providers. The only thing changing is how much MORE the administration of the program will cost because it is being "privatized".....The adminitrators future bonuses will be determined on how much more efficient they provide services.....that is where the deeper cutting of services comes in.
I hope all you folks out there are wealthy and well insured and never have to rely on MedicAid for your health care.
 
Lucas...it is NOT "cost cutting"...it is reducing services to MedicAid patients and their providers. The only thing changing is how much MORE the administration of the program will cost because it is being "privatized".....The adminitrators future bonuses will be determined on how much more efficient they provide services.....that is where the deeper cutting of services comes in.
I hope all you folks out there are wealthy and well insured and never have to rely on MedicAid for your health care.
Having a sister in law who is dependent on Medicaid this scares me. He apparently has no concern for society's neediest people.
 
Lucas...it is NOT "cost cutting"...it is reducing services to MedicAid patients and their providers. The only thing changing is how much MORE the administration of the program will cost because it is being "privatized".....The adminitrators future bonuses will be determined on how much more efficient they provide services.....that is where the deeper cutting of services comes in.
I hope all you folks out there are wealthy and well insured and never have to rely on MedicAid for your health care.

Oh, it'll all come together nicely. Don't think that allowing needy people to slip through the cracks won't reduce service levels. Then the administrators can claim an efficiency and get a bonus. When the first efficiency is claimed then broader cuts will be looked at because, "Nobody has been hurt".
I heard a great segment on NPR's On Point last week about autism. The diagnosis of this condition is on the rise. Debate the reasons, but, it's on the rise. For now it's manageable because the parents of this generation are alive. There was a woman from Nashville who gave a passionate response about how she and her husband care for their son on their own because they have the resources. She was on the verge of tears because she knew at some point she and her husband will pass away, and the resources will dry up. Then what? She talked about all the people who aren't as lucky as she and her husband to care for their child in Tennessee, which has been creating "efficiencies", in their Medicaid system.
 
hasn't this been done successfully in other states because managed care groups get lower rates?
Historically, Iowa is one of the lowest reimbursed States in the Union. The fact is Iowa's $4.2B dollar MedicAid fund has been operating at about 4-8% "administrative" cost....The "managed care" folks are taking 15% off the top to handle their costs. The size of the fund is not increasing accordingly. The result will be fewer reimbursed services to clients. Those who cannot help themselves will be asked to do more for themselves as corporation's reap in additional revenues.
LWade......providers are not lining up to serve MedicAid patients because the rates are so damn low now. This is going to be a huge issue particularly in the area of mental/behavioral health care.
 
just because expenses go up doesn't mean there is less to work with. there are multiple variables and everything I have read indicates that net-net the state comes out ahead. you seem to be focused on a single variable, but we all know why that is. I am not a big branstad guy but your rants get a little old.
 
just because expenses go up doesn't mean there is less to work with. there are multiple variables and everything I have read indicates that net-net the state comes out ahead. you seem to be focused on a single variable, but we all know why that is. I am not a big branstad guy but your rants get a little old.

Regardless of expenses, can Branstad guarantee that services will be improved? That's the bottom line for me as these are individuals who require assistance due to a variety of factors; in my sister-in-law's case she's intellectually, psychologically, and physically disabled.

Branstad's track record of (lack of) compassion for those with psychiatric/psychological issues does not make me sanguine that this change will be an improvement in care and service.
 
just because expenses go up doesn't mean there is less to work with. there are multiple variables and everything I have read indicates that net-net the state comes out ahead. you seem to be focused on a single variable, but we all know why that is. I am not a big branstad guy but your rants get a little old.
L.Wade...I guess I just not as smart as you. I don't see how Iowa's MedicAid program needs new management....and management that will charge atleast twice what it is costing the State today. It's not like Iowa's MedicAid program is rife with fraud and corruption. Yes, there is fraud but it is generally searched out and corrected. However, I believe this idea of fraud is much like Matt Schultz and his Iowa voter fraud rampage of a few years ago. It makes nice conversation but when all is said and done, not much is there.
This MedicAid thingy directly affects people...real Iowans. My rants may be getting a little old but LWade, this one is valid. This is Terry blatantly choosing winners and losers. Something he has publicly railed and campaigned against. Basically LWade, Terry is lying and I'm calling him on it. The other thing that amazes me is that this has been done without any legislative input or oversight. The Iowa Senate (Dems) voted for a committee to oversee the transfer to private sector and the Iowa House (GOP) voted for no oversight.
I'm not picking on Terry LWADE but he often times makes it unavoidable.
 
I didn't say they were. I don't know anything about it other than applying the concept of common sense.

by refusing to even acknowledge anything beyond cost, Joel is basically saying that he wouldn't spend an additional $100 in gas to buy a vehicle for $5000 less.
 
I didn't say they were. I don't know anything about it other than applying the concept of common sense.

by refusing to even acknowledge anything beyond cost, Joel is basically saying that he wouldn't spend an additional $100 in gas to buy a vehicle for $5000 less.


All I'm concerned with are the services provided through Medicaid. Unfortunately, it seems that too many people are concerned ONLY with fiscal issues surrounding Medicaid. If Branstad is going to change how services are provided for given a different system of reimbursement I want a guarantee that said services will not be reduced.

Given Branstad's record of no compassion for the less fortunate how can anyone support such a plan?
 
our local left leaning paper says that 70% of other states used a managed care approach and that they expect to save $51mm in the first 6 months of the fiscal year.
 
All I'm concerned with are the services provided through Medicaid. Unfortunately, it seems that too many people are concerned ONLY with fiscal issues surrounding Medicaid. If Branstad is going to change how services are provided for given a different system of reimbursement I want a guarantee that said services will not be reduced.

Given Branstad's record of no compassion for the less fortunate how can anyone support such a plan?
that is a fair point, but it's not what Joel was arguing about. he was talking about money.
 
our local left leaning paper says that 70% of other states used a managed care approach and that they expect to save $51mm in the first 6 months of the fiscal year.
All you're talking about are costs. How does that translate to SERVICE?
If it's easy to talk 'cost' then it should be just as easy to provide some data about quality of care. Tell me how this program of Branstad will translate into improved care for those who need such programs.
 
All you're talking about are costs. How does that translate to SERVICE?
If it's easy to talk 'cost' then it should be just as easy to provide some data about quality of care. Tell me how this program of Branstad will translate into improved care for those who need such programs.

This isn't my argument, dumbass. I do not give a flying eff about Medicaid. I am simply refuting another idiotic tangent by Joel by utilizing 15 seconds of my life to Google a topic instead of going off on some political rant.
 
The decision to close the mental health facilities in Clarinda and Mt. Pleasant were short sighted, and rammed through with no input from either Republican or Democratic legislators. This will end poorly for the people that need help the most, but, since the people needing mental health services aren't a large voting block Branstad feels empowered to ignore them even though they are his citizens, and he's sworn to protect them.
The decision to close the facilities will put undue burdens on law enforcement in remote parts of the state who have to hold and transport people in crisis. But, that's just passing the tab and responsibility to someone else, so it's a win for Branstad.
This decision to switch Medicaid will hurt the people that need it the most. It's ill timed, and it's being done without full participation of government and the people who will need to implement it. But, again, it's just poor and vulnerable folks who will be hurt, and they didn't vote for Branstad.
 
what sort of information is available that leads you to believe that people in need will begin getting worse care?
 
what sort of information is available that leads you to believe that people in need will begin getting worse care?

Since when has the availability of fewer resources ever resulted in improved service?

The point is, if there is going to be a change in the Medicaid system due to fiscal concerns, there must be assurances that services will not also be changed negatively.
 
our local left leaning paper says that 70% of other states used a managed care approach and that they expect to save $51mm in the first 6 months of the fiscal year.
And the fact of the matter is LWade is that they will NOT save that money. There operative to remember here is that figures don't lie, but liars figure. Truth be known, this "changer-over" is gonna be the equal to the ObamaCare roll-out of a couple of years ago. The current providers have not a clue what the future administrators are going to deem proper as the administrators have not been chosen yet. As the Brits would say, "this is indeed a sticky wicket!"
LWade...you need to ask yourself a very simple question.....IF $51M could be saved from this STATE administered, legislatively over-sighted program, don't you honestly believe these savings would have long ago been implemented? IF MedicAiod does reduce its costs $51M in the first 6 months, I will guarantee you there has been a severe limitation on services being rendered......and do you want medicine practiced by a physician or by an insurance executive? (just the commom bitch coming from the right regarding ObamaCare).
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT