According to HHS, nine states are responsible for 60 percent of children’s coverage losses between March and September.

HHS wants states with the highest rates of children dropped from Medicaid to use certain federal rules that make it easier to get families back on coverage.

In letters sent Monday to the governors of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Dakota and Texas, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra urged the states to take up more of options CMS has offered to ensure coverage. The options include allowing states to use enrollee information they have to auto-renew coverage.

HHS also issued new guidance for states Monday, including an option to give kids an additional 12 months to get on the rolls. That option is available through 2024, CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure told reporters.

Becerra also asked the states to remove barriers to Children’s Health Insurance Program enrollment for children no longer eligible for Medicaid, reduce call center times for families and expand their Medicaid programs if they haven’t already.

  • Laughbone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    11 months ago

    You’d think the states that endanger a woman’s life to birth a baby, would want to keep those babies alive after they are born but here we are. I’d say I’d love to hear a Pro-Life perspective on this but in reality I actually give zero fucks what the people who got us in this mess think.

  • jackoneill@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    11 months ago

    How about every citizen gets single payer funded health care like all of the other civilized countries. You can think of the children and the adults all at once. Radical thought

    • runswithjedi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      The problem is that the US basically has 50 mini-countries who are all allowed to make their own rules. In fact those rules often take precedent over the federal rules. As long as the financial transactions all take place in the same state, the federal government is very limited about how it can regulate those transactions.

      • MicroWave@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        11 months ago

        In fact those rules often take precedent over the federal rules.

        I generally agree with your comment, except for this part. When federal law conflicts with state law, federal law typically takes precedence and preempts the state law, thanks to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This federal preemption also applies to intrastate laws. The key nuance is determining whether a federal law and a state law are actually in conflict for preemption to apply.

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        totally explains why i cant smoke a joint. “states rights” my asshole…

        it wouldnt take all the states cooperation to enact a federal single payer system, it would just take congress to actually care about human beings more than the stock market.

        health insurance profits only exist at the expense of human suffering.

      • Caradoc879@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Well if they’re paying out of pocket for healtchare instead of with taxes, they aren’t civilized.

        • BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Multi-payer systems are also found in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, and Austria, by the way. Notorious hellscapes, the lot of them.

  • ClydapusGotwald@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    11 months ago

    Good old think of the children. See they want you to just think of them and not protect and better their lives. Can’t do that it costs money.

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      11 months ago

      I don’t hate Biden for this. His hands are completely tied because of federalism and the separation of powers.

      What I hate is that his hands are tied because of those things and it’s hurting kids. It’s a shitty system of government that seems designed to prevent progress. Which I guess I should expect from something written by slavers.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        11 months ago

        His hands aren’t tied, he just refuses to use any of the tools available to him.

        For example, he could withhold federal funding from states that refuse to comply.

        • snooggums@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Based on historical events, that will just allow them to make further cuts to programs that support the poor and minorities because “we can’t afford these programs”. Cutting funding as a threat to conservatives who don’t want to spend government money on the less fortunate is counterproductive.

          • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Conservatives are re-directing and outright pocketing federal funds wherever possible. They employ privately held interests and invent money-hiding bureaucratic schemes to provide bullshit services.

            I live in Texas where this has been the case for decades. State services here are effectively non-existent because of it, yet we receive quite a bit of federal funds. Where does it all go? Into our governor’s friends’ pockets (and thus to him as well).

            If the feds want services to actually reach red state residents, they will need to exclude the state entirely from the process. Period.

            A conservative politician is simply not capable of making a choice that benefits others. Conservatives will never permit their state social support systems to function effectively, as long as they have any say in it.

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            11 months ago

            They could make further cuts right now, no need to wait for Biden to give them justification. Why do you think they don’t