Medicaid Requires Proof of Citizenship

[Faebinder]

You know medicare/medicaid cracks me up....

Read this.

How stupid can the government be not to actually have this rule till NOW! Half of california moves across the border back and forth and can come enroll in medicaid.

I am amused that so many people though cant produce proof of citizenship.. that means all those people dont have a birth certificate, a passport or a certificate of citizenship... which to me is insane.. especially the birth certificate part.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[i61164]

You know medicare/medicaid cracks me up....

Read this.

How stupid can the government be not to actually have this rule till NOW! Half of california moves across the border back and forth and can come enroll in medicaid.

I am amused that so many people though cant produce proof of citizenship.. that means all those people dont have a birth certificate, a passport or a certificate of citizenship... which to me is insane.. especially the birth certificate part.

This is a little off topic, but the new Medicaid "proof of citizenship" rule is probably more bad than good.

-It created tons of extra work for the already over burdened social workers
-People that previously had Meidicaid will now have to go to the ER for care (unisureds using the ER for primary care was already a big enough problem)
-Many children have lost thier insurance (you gotta admit that denying healthcare to children is not exactly the right thing to do)
-Many that cannot prove citizenship have lost all their documents (e.g. Katrina vicitms) or have serious mental illnesses.

Do you think we should yank grandma's coverage (which pays for her antipsychotic meds) just because she can't find her birth certificate and can't remember where she was born? Some of these people have Alzheimer's you know. Even if you do have the wherewithal to order a new copy of a birth certificate, you have to submit the right documents (which you may or may not have) and it takes many weeks to process. That causes gaps in people's coverage.

The intention of the new rule may be to deny coverage to those who are not entitled to it, but the result is denial of coverage to many people who are entitled to it.

 

[Faebinder]

This is a little off topic, but the new Medicaid "proof of citizenship" rule is probably more bad than good.

-It created tons of extra work for the already over burdened social workers
-People that previously had Meidicaid will now have to go to the ER for care (unisureds using the ER for primary care was already a big enough problem)
-Many children have lost thier insurance (you gotta admit that denying healthcare to children is not exactly the right thing to do)
-Many that cannot prove citizenship have lost all their documents (e.g. Katrina vicitms) or have serious mental illnesses.

Do you think we should yank grandma's coverage (which pays for her antipsychotic meds) just because she can't find her birth certificate and can't remember where she was born? Some of these people have Alzheimer's you know. Even if you do have the wherewithal to order a new copy of a birth certificate, you have to submit the right documents (which you may or may not have) and it takes many weeks to process. That causes gaps in people's coverage.

The intention of the new rule may be to deny coverage to those who are not entitled to it, but the result is denial of coverage to many people who are entitled to it.

We agree to disagree.... Patients should get used to being asked proof of citizenship... many people living in the US are not US citizens... including permanent residents and visitors. It's the same theory of why do people put doors at their home entrance even though trespassing is illegal. I sympathize with grandma/grandpa but this is reasonable in my opinion.

 

[i61164]

We agree to disagree.... Patients should get used to being asked proof of citizenship... many people living in the US are not US citizens... including permanent residents and visitors. It's the same theory of why do people put doors at their home entrance even though trespassing is illegal. I sympathize with grandma/grandpa but this is reasonable in my opinion.

I think that it may be reasonable in theory, but from what I have read, the actual result is far from the intended result. What has happened is that less people have qualified for coverage. So, hypothetically speaking, lets say that 1 million people were not able to come up with proof of citizenship and were denied coverage. If we knew that 90% of them were actually Americans and only 10% were illegals, would this be a good idea? What about 70% and 30%? In other words, the question is how many Americans can we deny coverage for each illegal that loses coverage, and accomplish what we are trying to accomplish. If the goal was just to save money (by denying coverage to illegals and Americans alike), then we could just cut back Medicaid's budget. I think that if 90% of the people that lost coverage were illegals and only 10% real Americans, then it would be ok, but I suspect that it is nowhere near this good (except maybe in Cali).

Also, these people that lose coverage are going to end up in the ER anyway, so how much money is this really going to save? A trip to the ER costs way more than an office visit.

Before the "proof of citizenship" law, there was already a mechanism in place to identify illegals, it just wasn't as strict. That is why the number of illegals filtered out of the system is not too much higher than it was before and now you are just filtering out way more Americans (who are obviously Americans just by looking at them and talking to them).

 

[Faebinder]

I think that it may be reasonable in theory, but from what I have read, the actual result is far from the intended result. What has happened is that less people have qualified for coverage. So, hypothetically speaking, lets say that 1 million people were not able to come up with proof of citizenship and were denied coverage. If we knew that 90% of them were actually Americans and only 10% were illegals, would this be a good idea? What about 70% and 30%? In other words, the question is how many Americans can we deny coverage for each illegal that loses coverage, and accomplish what we are trying to accomplish. If the goal was just to save money (by denying coverage to illegals and Americans alike), then we could just cut back Medicaid's budget. I think that if 90% of the people that lost coverage were illegals and only 10% real Americans, then it would be ok, but I suspect that it is nowhere near this good (except maybe in Cali).

Also, these people that lose coverage are going to end up in the ER anyway, so how much money is this really going to save? A trip to the ER costs way more than an office visit.

Before the "proof of citizenship" law, there was already a mechanism in place to identify illegals, it just wasn't as strict. That is why the number of illegals filtered out of the system is not too much higher than it was before and now you are just filtering out way more Americans (who are obviously Americans just by looking at them and talking to them).

I think this is a case of "blame the law" instead of "blame the enforcer". The goal of the law is logical and legit... the enforcer (our government) is backed up with personnel trying to go through the paperwork of citizenship (it's easy to prove citizenship... Passport/Citizenship Cert/Voter Registration/Birth Certificate.. and you don't even need a currently dated one). I think you can blame the government for this one, not the law or its intention. They need to hire more people to process the documentation.

 

[i61164]

Maybe...but you know, increasing the number of bureaucrats to deal with the increasingly complex rules that they themselves create may not be the best answer. Take the IRS for example. They have this ridiculously complex set of rules which has created an entire profession or an entire industry, if you will, of bean counters and paper pushers. It just doesn't make sense to me. There really ought to be a better and more efficient way. Oh well. I guess it will be interesting to see what good old Uncle Sam does with universal healthcare. Maybe it will just be a bigger version of Medicaid with, as you sugggest, more people to enforce the rules.

 

[Rain Elizabeth]

It's not in anyone's best interest to have undocumented immigrants walking around with untreated infectious diseases, kids not getting immunized, etc. Do you want to catch TB from someone who was afraid to go to the doctor because they wouldn't be able to afford to pay for it (this does happen!)? Plus some homeless people could never provide proof of citizenship. Hooray! More people walking around with TB for me to catch! Besides, I guess I'm one of the few posting here who believe in a universal right to basic healthcare regardless of ability to pay or where you're from. But for those who disagree with that, I have read multiple studies (don't have time to look them up now) that show that the U.S. saves money by providing insurance to undocumented immigrants so they prevent disease or deal with medical problems when they're small and relatively inexpensive instead of having to treat them in the hospital when they show up in the ER with advanced, emergent, expensive disease.