Not a good idea

[Lanya]

 Schools see limits on medicaid payments

Fri Dec 21, 5:48 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration issued a new rule Friday that eliminates Medicaid reimbursement for certain transportation and administrative tasks undertaken by schools on behalf of students with disabilities.


A wide range of medical services are furnished to students in schools. Speech and physical therapy are typical examples. Medicaid, the government's health insurance program for the poor, helps pay for those activities for low-income children. It will continue to pay. However, the new rule will restrict when schools can bill the federal government for clerical duties associated with providing health care.

For example, schools can no longer expect Medicaid reimbursement for the planning of student immunizations. Schools also won't get paid for transporting students getting speech or physical therapy to school or back home.
[..................]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071221/ap_on_go_pr_wh/medicaid_schools;_ylt=AkrtFATB8UBQFmMfNSWrtsmyFz4D

[BT]

Why not?

If the states would still like to provide reimbursements they can.

[Michael Tee]

<<Why not?

<<If the states would still like to provide reimbursements they can. >>

So what's the rationale here?  Shrink the federal government while expanding the state governments to take up the slack?  Sounds like the same amount of government involvement and tax dollars will be required if the kids get the service.

Sounds to me like someone is avoiding the issue - - entitlement.  Either the kids are entitled or they are not.  If the Feds say, "We ain't payin', but someone else can if they want to," that's saying, "Fuck those kids, we don't give a shit."  Far as the Bush administration is concerned, they seem to have said, "Fuck the kids."  Sure, the states - - some states, if they have a different POV than the Bush administration - - might pick up the slack.  So could Oprah for that matter.  But it's a cop-out for them to point out others who might pick up a burden that they themselves have clearly sloughed off.

[The_Professor]

I see a problem here in that the aid was previously given and now it is not. This centers around expectations. For example, if the Federal Government gives me a tax cut and then takes it away later, don't I have right to be upset? Similarliy, if the Federal Govt or any govt, gives me a benefit and I then get use to that benefit, regarless whether it is "deserved" or not, and then they take it away, don't you expect people to get upset? Seems a little disingenious to me. It is like agreeing to provide the same level of medical coverage to me once I retire and then after I retire, changing it so I get less. Oops, that is already being done, isn't it?

[kimba1]

If the states would still like to provide reimbursements they can. >

thats a big if
here in Ca. arnold is doing a serious belt tightening system so it`ll be hard for Ca. to pick up the slack.
it don`t help we`re turning green,so we`ll got less money than ever before.

[BT]

This seems to be a move by the fed to focus on the core mission of medicaid which is to fund medical care for indigents. The immunizations are still being offered, the speech therapy is still being paid for. What they appear to be cutting is extras that are not necessary to the core mission.

Parents with insurance handle scheduling and transportation, i don't see why the poor can't do the same.

[kimba1]

most likely just do without
transportation cost money
and if it doesn`t take much to make a person to do without.
don`t forget most companies has no sickdays so a parent will lose pay for doing this.

[BT]

most likely just do without
transportation cost money
and if it doesn`t take much to make a person to do without.
don`t forget most companies has no sickdays so a parent will lose pay for doing this.

Parents with insurance may or may not have sick days.

The medical care is available. Is it not the parents responsibility to find a way to get to it?

And if it isn't, when did that change? And at what cost?

[kimba1]

it is thier responsiblity.
but it doesn`t mean they`ll get paid for not doing thier job.
nothing really change
I remember a study 20+ years ago that stated alot of families don`t feed thier kids so they will have money to drive to work.
I think that study is what cause the school lunch program.
I hear thier cancelling it which means some kids are gonna lose thiert only meal for that day.

[BT]

but it doesn`t mean they`ll get paid for not doing thier job.

Should they be paid for not doing their job?

[_JS]

Schools see limits on medicaid payments

Fri Dec 21, 5:48 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration issued a new rule Friday that eliminates Medicaid reimbursement for certain transportation and administrative tasks undertaken by schools on behalf of students with disabilities.


A wide range of medical services are furnished to students in schools. Speech and physical therapy are typical examples. Medicaid, the government's health insurance program for the poor, helps pay for those activities for low-income children. It will continue to pay. However, the new rule will restrict when schools can bill the federal government for clerical duties associated with providing health care.

For example, schools can no longer expect Medicaid reimbursement for the planning of student immunizations. Schools also won't get paid for transporting students getting speech or physical therapy to school or back home.
[..................]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071221/ap_on_go_pr_wh/medicaid_schools;_ylt=AkrtFATB8UBQFmMfNSWrtsmyFz4D

Welcome to federalism. The Fed feels a pinch and dumps it on the state and local governments to pick up the slack. They may or may not. In this case it involves a small minority with almost no voice to be heard - poor parents with children who have special needs. As long as the upper class and the god-like demographic of the middle class (in an election year) don't feel the effects of it; it can likely be safely ignored. In fact, "fiscal conservative" governors may even talk about "lowering costs by reducing red tape." 

[Lanya]

I think i'll go listen to the Queen's Christmas message again.    She appears to have taken the message to heart.

[kimba1]

Should they be paid for not doing their job?

I meant that without sickday they`ll lose money .

it`s not a matter what`s thier responsiblity.
it`s what`s takes priority.
the lower the income ,the more chances somethings will be left out
ex. takeing time for your child or make money to house and feed family.
many families have worked around this problem,but that doesn`t mean all can do this.

[The_Professor]

Schools see limits on medicaid payments

Fri Dec 21, 5:48 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration issued a new rule Friday that eliminates Medicaid reimbursement for certain transportation and administrative tasks undertaken by schools on behalf of students with disabilities.


A wide range of medical services are furnished to students in schools. Speech and physical therapy are typical examples. Medicaid, the government's health insurance program for the poor, helps pay for those activities for low-income children. It will continue to pay. However, the new rule will restrict when schools can bill the federal government for clerical duties associated with providing health care.

For example, schools can no longer expect Medicaid reimbursement for the planning of student immunizations. Schools also won't get paid for transporting students getting speech or physical therapy to school or back home.
[..................]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071221/ap_on_go_pr_wh/medicaid_schools;_ylt=AkrtFATB8UBQFmMfNSWrtsmyFz4D

Welcome to federalism. The Fed feels a pinch and dumps it on the state and local governments to pick up the slack. They may or may not. In this case it involves a small minority with almost no voice to be heard - poor parents with children who have special needs. As long as the upper class and the god-like demographic of the middle class (in an election year) don't feel the effects of it; it can likely be safely ignored. In fact, "fiscal conservative" governors may even talk about "lowering costs by reducing red tape." 

So, then, is YOUR version a "lets just open the fiscal door to all causes"? Can a government even afford to help ALL needy families? Should it feel obligated to? Where might the funds come from?

[BT]

it`s not a matter what`s thier responsiblity.
it`s what`s takes priority.

The other side of the coin is they are using education staff to do what should be a public health function.

There is an obvious solution to this.

Let the parents schedule and let the parents pay a small fee for transportation.

My guess is the fee would be less expensive than a day off of work.