The law of unintended consequences strikes again when a good idea’s implementation isn’t thought through fully. I bet we’re going to see more and more problems for real citizens without proper papers if we start rightly start tightening up on the illegals.
Study: New Rules Led to Medicaid Decline
Medicaid rolls declined in many states after Congress imposed new documentation requirements, but most of the drop-off appears to be among people eligible for coverage _ not illegal immigrants.
A law that took effect July 1, 2006, requires states to obtain evidence of citizenship and nationality when determining whether people are eligible for Medicaid.
The Government Accountability Office surveyed states on the impact of the new rules. Twenty-two of 44 states reported enrollment declines, the GAO said Tuesday, and most of those states said the decline was due to delays in coverage or a loss of coverage for eligible citizens.
That story is just terrible reporting. Whoever wrote it never heard of putting all the main elements of a story into the lead paragraph and they totally neglected the 5 W’s.
After I finished reading everything, I still had no idea why the Medicaid rolls declined, if they actually did decline, which isn’t really very clear.
Speaking as an ex-journalist and current blogger, I ‘d say that’s one strike against bloggers being considered the equal of journalists, not to mention being an example of a serious decline in editing standards.
perhaps it was written by an immigrant
#1 – An early paragraph notes that the GAO’s concern was raised, in fact, because the “states did not provide data to document their conclusions” when they removed clients from the rolls.
I haven’t had my 2nd cuppa, yet – but I was able to find that in the article.
#1, Cinaedh
Yes, I see that very clearly. Shoot the messenger and ignore the message. If we are going to critique the message, maybe we should critique yours.
#4 – Mr. Fusion,
Well said. Personally, I still have to read the rest of the article but am bothered by this bit.
The Government Accountability Office surveyed states on the impact of the new rules. Twenty-two of 44 states reported enrollment declines, the GAO said Tuesday, and most of those states said the decline was due to delays in coverage or a loss of coverage for eligible citizens.
Meanwhile, 12 states said the requirement had no effect on enrollment. Ten others didn’t know.
First, what about the other 6 states?
Second, Ten others didn’t know??!!?
Is anyone bothered by the fact that the GAO didn’t notice that 6 states did not report numbers? What about DC, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam?
Is anyone really disturbed that 10 states can’t even count their enrollments? How do you provide care to people when you can’t count them? How do you budget resources?
So, we have a federal government that can’t count the states. We have state governments that can’t count their enrollees and we have people like myself saying that as bad as all this sounds, incompetence still sounds far better than a competent bunch of corporate thieves doing everything in their power to deny coverage to everyone.
Oh well, I’m sure the eligible people will have no trouble getting coverage once they get their passports …
#5 – me,
Oops, looks like I didn’t properly terminate my italics. Please assume normal text to resume beginning with the statement ‘First, what about the other 6 states?’
[Fixed: ed.]
WASHINGTON — Medicaid rolls declined in many states after Congress imposed new documentation requirements, but most of the drop-off appears to be among people eligible for coverage _ not illegal immigrants.
It’s early morning, I’m already too tired for this and I’m no longer being paid to teach it but according to the headline, the story is about new rules requiring proof of citizenship and nationality, which are leading to a decline in the Medicaid roles by legitimate recipients.
I think most readers first question would be, why can’t legitimate recipients prove their citizenship and nationality? As it is presented, that’s the story. I just re-read the entire story and I still don’t know why citizens can’t prove their citizenship.
The fact there are new rules aimed at illegal immigrants is of only passing relevance, not really very important to the question. The GAO is of only passing relevance, not really very important to the question.
A different story might be: why can’t the states provide data to document their conclusions? I’d add it as a sidebar.
Also, what is this ‘shooting the messenger’ crap? I DON’T CARE about the message OR illegal immigrants. That’s why I ignored it totally.
Perhaps you’re shooting the messenger for some arcane, unknown reason?
Typo in # 7
Sorry about the typo: ‘roles’ should be ‘rolls’. (I guess I’m a lousy editor myself!)
Once you guys start talking about the same thing, disagreement will end.
#7, Cinaedh
OK, here is the headline:
Study: New Rules Led to Medicaid Decline
Now here is the opening paragraph:
WASHINGTON — Medicaid rolls declined in many states after Congress imposed new documentation requirements, but most of the drop-off appears to be among people eligible for coverage _ not illegal immigrants.
What in the headline is NOT covered in the opening paragraph?
You raise a question.
I think most readers first question would be, why can’t legitimate recipients prove their citizenship and nationality? As it is presented, that’s the story.
The answer is just five short paragraphs down.
In responding to the report, the federal agency that oversees Medicaid raised concerns that states did not provide data to document their conclusions.
The GAO acknowledged that its review basically represents the perspective of state Medicaid officials.
“(They) stated the requirement has resulted in enrollment declines and has posed administrative burdens to states and individuals,” the report said.
And as you mention it.
Also, what is this ’shooting the messenger’ crap? I DON’T CARE about the message OR illegal immigrants. That’s why I ignored it totally.
Instead of commenting upon the subject matter, you proceeded to castigate the writer for just terrible reporting . That is the “shooting the messenger crap” you didn’t want to bring up. I noticed, as did everyone else, you don’t care about the message, you only seem to care about raising issues that could not be covered.
Forget about teaching, go back to learning.
Heaven forbid somebody has to prove they are actually eligible before going on the government dole.
11–Years ago my Daddy told me about working for the Red Cross. They set up a food line but wanted RULES enforced that only people who were jobless could eat there. Daddy said he didn’t care. If someone was willing to wait in line for 30 minutes for a sandwhich, he would give it to them.
Naturally, he got fired—so he got in line.
aka—why question the status of a person if the need is apparent?
#12, If it’s your money, then do whatever you like with it. But when you are giving away other people’s money, i.e. from tax revenues, it is your obligation to ensure that the recipients are eligible, as specified in the rules (the law).
13—So would you agree the law should be changed to put emphasis on immediate apparent need rather than having met some registration/proof process?
As always, probably comes down to exactly what we are talking about. Emergency room visits versus some sort of long term rehab–or worse some monthly stipend to keep them from eating garbage?
Rules, yes the rules. But for what ultimate purpose??? Surely not just to follow the rules?
#13, Sea
…it is your obligation to ensure that the recipients are eligible, as specified in the rules …
That is all well and good and I don’t have a problem with following the rules. When, however, the rules only apply to the poor then there is a problem. Too often American welfare programs go to those who don’t need it. The agriculture subsidy programs mostly help large agribiz, not the small farmer. R&D grants, tax write offs, and patents go to drug companies using public funded research. Oil companies still are given tax breaks for drilling a well into known reserves.
So this program seems to have collateral damages. I can’t say they are unintended because this was brought up during debate. Yet the Republican congressional leadership didn’t care. The point is the rules are stacked.
#15, well, since I don’t agree that a valid role of government is to run a charity funded through coercion, I’m certain that the problems you describe could most effectively be corrected by eliminating all welfare in general.
16—How did I know that was your position?
#16, WHAT ?!?!?! And stop giving money to some of America’s richest? What are you, a commie? No, you must be one of the effen commies.
Well, you know, something like this happened in my little world. My niece went in to get her driver’s license with three forms of I.D. including her birth certificate. It wasn’t good enough. In the next line was a Mexican. All he needed was a letter addressed to him with his name on the front! My niece’s dad is not one to roll over and play dead and made sure she got her license then and there. Let’s play by the same rules or kick ’em out of the game.
Yeah, probably a thousand illegals were denied and 20 legitimate citizens were delayed. The media and state government are so pro-mexican invasion, they can’t straighten back up from kissing they butts. Basically, I don’t trust any of these reports anymore – weren’t the liberal/commies supposed to be one’s not to trust the establishment..