HHS finalizes rule guaranteeing 100 percent funding for new Medicaid beneficiaries

[ProSense]

HHS finalizes rule guaranteeing 100 percent funding for new Medicaid beneficiaries

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today announced a final rule with a request for comments that provides, effective January 1, 2014, the federal government will pay 100 percent of the cost of certain newly eligible adult Medicaid beneficiaries. These payments will be in effect through 2016, phasing down to a permanent 90 percent matching rate by 2020. The Affordable Care Act authorizes states to expand Medicaid to adult Americans under age 65 with income of up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level (approximately $15,000 for a single adult in 2012) and provides unprecedented federal funding for these states.

“This is a great deal for states and great news for Americans,” HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said. “Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, more Americans will have access to health coverage and the federal government will cover a vast majority of the cost. Treating people who don’t have insurance coverage raises health care costs for hospitals, people with insurance, and state budgets.”

Today’s final rule provides important information to states that expand Medicaid. It describes the simple and accurate method states will use to claim the matching rate that is available for Medicaid expenditures of individuals with incomes up to 133 percent of poverty and who are defined as “newly eligible” and are enrolled in the new eligibility group. The system is set up to make eligibility determinations as simple and accurate as possible for state programs.

Under the Affordable Care Act, states that cover the new adult group in Medicaid will have 100 percent of the costs of newly eligible Americans paid for by the federal government in 2014, 2015, and 2016. The federal government’s contribution is then phased-down gradually to 90 percent by 2020, and remains there permanently. For states that had coverage expansions in effect prior to enactment of the Affordable Care Act, the rule also provides information about the availability of an increased FMAP for certain adults who are not newly eligible.

The rule builds on several years of work that HHS has done to support and provide flexibility to states’ Medicaid programs ahead of the 2014 expansion, including:

• 90 percent matching rate for states to improve eligibility and enrollment systems;
  
  
• More resources and flexibility for states to test innovative ways of delivering care through Medicaid;
  
  
• More collaboration with states on audits that track down fraud; and
  
  
• Specifically outlining ways states can make Medicaid improvements without going through a waiver process.

For more information on the improvements made to Medicaid, please visit: http://www.medicaid.gov/State-Resource-Center/Events-and-Announcements/Downloads/MMF_Jan-Dec-2012_FINAL.PDF

For the full text of today’s final rule, please go to http://www.ofr.gov/inspection.aspx

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2013pres/03/20130329a.html

[freshwest]

1. Thanks for a post full of facts. Marking it with a reply now.

It'll sink like a stone.

[ProSense]

2. Thanks.

Kick!

[freshwest]

9. Shall I cross post this to the BOG?

[ProSense]

10. Please do. Thanks. n/t

[freshwest]

30. Done, with the addition of a picture:

Appreciate your searching and providing so much information for us at DU. Thank you.

[ProSense]

31. Thanks. n/t

[truedelphi]

3. However, those of us who are in the 18K to 30K range

Are still shit out of luck. According to what is going on with the ACA, my household must come up with 11K a year just for the insurance payments. (Health premiums are high for anyone over the age of 55.) My household of two - basic insurance coverage here in California is 11K. Then there is the requirement
of $ 5K a piece deductions before insurer steps in, then co pays!

A friend of ours who makes slightly less than us, before the State Medicaid kicks in, he must spend out of pocket for his medical needs, a total of eight hundred dollars in a month . The problem with that is that for many people, there is no eight hundred dollars. And since a brief emergency room visit will total at least five hundred bucks, many people who are poor will put it off, until they are beyond help or have become a very expensive patient.

[Cal Carpenter]

4. +1

The 'cracks' which millions will fall through are more like canyons.

[ProSense]

5. Not

"However, those of us who are in the 18K to 30K range

Are still shit out of luck. According to what is going on with the ACA, my household must come up with 11K a year just for the insurance payments. (Health premiums are high for anyone over the age of 55.) My household of two - basic insurance coverage here in California is 11K. "

...accurate. A family of two with income of $30,000 is eligible for subsidies for about 86 percent of premiums.

[Cal Carpenter]

7. Here's another example

Directly quoted from this post I made to you last night :

There is a large swath of people who will struggle to use their insurance with subsidies through an exchange. Here's an example. A family of 4 making around $40,000 can be expected to pay as much as $7,600 in a year between premiums, deductibles, co-pays, etc.

This is based on a link here: http://101.communitycatalyst.org/aca_provisions/subsidies (there is a ton of info on that site about many aspects of the program)

My math isn't quite exact but it is close.

Employer coverage provided outside of the Exchange for low-wage workers, as described in the article you posted in the OP, tend to be very minimal in coverage with high deductibles, copays, etc. The benchmark plans through the exchange are not exactly great coverage from what I can find, and better plans with lower deductibles, copays, co-insurance, etc are more expensive and the difference is not subsidized.

This is still not 'affordable' to many people in many situations. If one family member has a major emergency or serious illness, these amounts may be prohibitive, or may still result in serious debt. If unexpected expenses come up, car repairs for example, that could mean no money for copays for office visits or meds. $30 or $50 or $100 is not always there when you need it at such wages.

“People who cannot afford coverage” are defined as those who would pay more than 8% of their household income just on premiums. Being low-wage, living month to month, how important that 8% of your income may be. A whole lot of America lives that way. Their whole lives. Because wages suck (and that's a whole nother thread)

There are millions who will fall through the cracks. Some will get no insurance at all. Others who, in some nominal way, have 'insurance', will still be unable to access affordable health care in many cases, which has been a major problem all along.

eta: I realize this example is outside the range discussed above, but the point remains. Millions of Americans will still have no health care access.

[ProSense]

8. You're posting

"There is a large swath of people who will struggle to use their insurance with subsidies through an exchange. Here's an example. A family of 4 making around $40,000 can be expected to pay as much as $7,600 in a year between premiums, deductibles, co-pays, etc. "

...inaccurate information. A family of four making $40,000 would be eligible for subsidies covering 84 percent of their premium. The subsidies go up to 400 percent of the FPL.

[Cal Carpenter]

11. Yes, and as demonstrated at the link

The subsidies will make sure that the premium and out-of-pocket expenditures is no higher than $7,600 for a family of 3 making $40,000 (roughly 200% of FPL).

This is a simple fact, based on objective info available at that link. It is NOT inaccurate no matter how many times you repeat it. And it is still prohibitively high for many people.

You can keep denying it, but it is a fact. There are millions who will not have access to affordable health care despite the subsidies.

ETA: Changed it to family of 3 after reviewing 2013 FPL. I think I had the numbers from 2012 or something before, sorry. But as I said before, my math wasn't exact. Once again, my point still stands.

[ProSense]

14. You are

"This is a simple fact, based on objective info available at that link. It is NOT inaccurate no matter how many times you repeat it. And it is still prohibitively high for many people."

...including a variable (a limit) that will not apply to everyone. For example, preventive care is free. Therefore, there will be no copay for routine care, including mamograms and the following:

Preventive Services Covered Under the Affordable Care Act
http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factsheets/2010/07/preventive-services-list.html

Here’s one way Obamacare changed today
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251288922

The fact is that in the case you cited, subsidies will cover 84 percent of the premium.

[Cal Carpenter]

15. Are you denying that there are millions who will not have access to affordable care

when the ACA is fully implemented?

Your percentages are not a 'counterpoint' to the dollar amounts I am using. They are apples and oranges. To lower-income person or family, whether it is 2% or 5% or 20%, it doesn't matter. It's the $10 or $50 or, say, $8,411.28 (see my post #13) that matters. One major medical emergency can get them to that point.

The fact is, the benchmark plans from the state Exchanges will have high o-o-p costs. Better plans are available for higher costs that are not subsidized.

Once again, I suppose I must repeat, there are millions of low-income workers who will not be able to afford health care after the ACA is fully implemented. You seem to be trying to argue that this is not the case.

I don't see anything wrong with looking at this act objectively to see what it's real outcomes will be. And for people in this income range who get the impression from folks like you that everything really will be affordable, well, I guess they'll have to learn the hard way.

[ProSense]

18. Wait

"Are you denying that there are millions who will not have access to affordable care when the ACA is fully implemented? "

...the OP is about Medicaid, and you initially tried to claim that anyone not eligible for Medicaid would fall through the "cracks" and have to pay the full premium.

The fact is the subsidies are in place for individual and families up to 400 percent of the FPL.

[magellan]

43. Aren't those subsidies in the form of tax credits?

When a self-employed 58-year old typically owes more payroll tax than income tax, how does an annual tax credit help them afford new monthly premiums (currently uninsured)? Will we get an annual refund from the IRS for the subsidy amount?

[ProSense]

44. I don't

"When a self-employed 58-year old typically owes more payroll tax than income tax, how does an annual tax credit help them afford new monthly premiums (currently uninsured)? Will we get an annual refund from the IRS for the subsidy amount?"

...understand? If a person cannot afford coverage now at $1,000 per month, and will qualify for either Medicaid or a subsidy, let's say one the lowers the cost to $100 per month, you're expecting a tax refund for the subsidy amount?

It's likely that the subsidies will be factored in when the person secures coverage.

[magellan]

46. So the subsidies are applied at the time of purchase?

Not as tax credits at the end of the year? I hope you're right. We couldn't even afford FL's monthly premiums for its pre-existing condition pool.

We still have no idea what happens if Voldemort decides not to run a state exchange or expand Medicaid...Any idea?

Edit to add: I see he agreed to the Medicaid expansion, so hopefully my husband qualifies for that.

[PoliticAverse]

63. You might find this document useful...

http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/documents/36bfactsheet.pdf

An excerpt:

The credit is advanceable, with advance payments made directly to the insurance company on
the family’s behalf. The advance payments are then reconciled against the amount of the family’s
actual premium tax credit, as calculated on the family’s federal income tax return.
Any repayment due from the taxpayer is subject to a cap for taxpayers with incomes under 400% of FPL.
The caps range from $600 for married taxpayers ($300 for single taxpayers) with household income under
200% of FPL to $2,500 for married taxpayers ($1,250 for single taxpayers) with household income above
300% but less than 400% of FPL.

[magellan]

64. Thanks for that!

[Cal Carpenter]

13. Actually, now that I have done all the math it's worse than I thought

for a family of three at $39,060 income (200% of 2013 FPL).

The subsidy will provide these limits:

Premiums - max 6.3% of income = 2460.78

Other Out-of-pocket expenses = 5950.50

That is a total of $8,411.28 that the family could pay, out of their $39,060 income.

Maybe most years they won't have that level of o-o-p expenses - just a few copays. But if there is one significant illness/accident/disease, those amounts rack up real quick.

This is NOT affordable.

ETA: and the subsidies only apply to folks who are accessing insurance through the state exchanges.

[ProSense]

16. You changed it

"for a family of three at $39,060 income "

...to a family of three, and your still providing misleading information.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022584523

[Cal Carpenter]

17. Yes, and I explained why in my edit

It is also why I created a new example with exact amounts in post #13. Which are worse than my incorrect example was.

It is not misleading. I used the income at the top of the range, and therefore the dollar amounts at the top of the range, as shown at the link I provided. It is based on 200% FPL for a family of 3.

Tell me where I am being misleading. Tell me where my math is wrong.

Either you don't know as much about the ACA as you think, or *you* are the one being misleading.

[ProSense]

19. So

"It is also why I created a new example with exact amounts in post #13. Which are worse than my incorrect example was."

...you're admitting your example was "incorrect" and are ignoring the fact that you're providing misleading information?

I mean, you acknowledge that the number you cite isn't going to apply to everyone, and yet you're trying really hard to make it all inclusive.

[Cal Carpenter]

20. Yes

of course I admit when I am wrong. There's no point in denying facts.

I caught my mistake, edited and explained it, and then created a new example with accurate numbers which actually makes my case stronger.

You still haven't demonstrated how I am being misleading. The end of your last sentence is just something you've made up in your mind. In fact, it kinda looks like projection.

"...and yet you're trying really hard to make it all inclusive..."

I'm done going in these circles with you.

[ProSense]

21. You

"You still haven't demonstrated how I am being misleading."

...finally said it yourself:

"Maybe most years they won't have that level of o-o-p expenses - just a few copays. But if there is one significant illness/accident/disease, those amounts rack up real quick.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2585575

No one will pay that on a yearly basis if at all. It's a limit, a cap in the event exhorbitant medical fees apply.

As I explained: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2585580

[truedelphi]

35. Here's why the Middle Class is screwed - the text you offer

Up tells us that a middle class family of four, with an income of some 40K, is going to have to cough up some 7.6K a year.

To the Elite, and Entitled people in office, 7,600 bucks is easily obtainable - you just wait till your next$ 40K bonus check, put 90% of it in your IRA and then put the rest into the problem you need it for. They have no concept of what it is like to be among the lower incomed.

I remember Hillary Clinton, way back in the early nineties, saying that under her plan (Which is very similar to the ACA we have now) a family of four making 24K would only have to come up with 4K a year.

But a family of four making 24,000 a year back in 1993 - I guess if they were living in Alabama like she and Bill had been doing, maybe the money was available. (Rural Alabama rents back then were extremely low.) But for most Americans on that type of income, 4 thousand dollars might as well be four million. It just is not there. It's especially not there if you and your family are living where the jobs are - rents tend to be high in coastal cities where the jobs exist and where wages are a bit higher.

f course, if the Elite who occupy Political Positions had cared about the lower middle class, they would have fought tooth and nail for Universal Single Payer HC. But they were really just arranging the chairs on the Titanic of American Health Care system, with most of their concern being about a guarantee that their friends at the Big Insurers would still have lots of profit.

[ProSense]

36. And here's

"Here's why the Middle Class is screwed - the text you offer Up tells us that a middle class family of four, with an income of some 40K, is going to have to cough up some 7.6K a year."

...why that's utter nonsense: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2585580

[Cal Carpenter]

45. Just so you know

my math wasn't right on that example (I was using older FPL numbers from memory). In my post #13 above on this thread I created a new example using current numbers.

The picture it paints is no better or anything, but it is more accurate. Despite ProSense's repeated charges of my being 'misleading'. I caught my own mistake, and corrected it in a transparent fashion before he even noticed it. And as I said, the accurate numbers don't add up as 'affordable' for many working class people either, especially if they have a medical emergency/surgery/accident/major illness in any given year.

Since this subthread seems to be active again I just want to keep the record straight. I do not want to be misleading

[truedelphi]

48. Thanks for your update.

My other real concern is that the ACA leaves almost every single American in the position of

One) having to fight for the proper treatment
Two) Having to figure out how to get re-imbursed.
Three) Then having to fight their insurers in order to get re-imbursed

Several years back, I was on Medicaid through the County. I had dental insurance through the "Anthem" Blue Cross people, as that was who handled the dental program for the State of California.

And there wasn't any apparent way to get Anthem to pay for any of my serious dental needs. I carefully found out what I needed to do to get my dental needs taken care of. I went to the proper dentist on this approved list. I had the approved dentist send me off to an approved dental surgeon. Then the nightmare about re-imbusement began.

Anthem wouldn't of course, give me the money upfront. So I had to borrow it first from family and friends. Then I had to undergo the procedure, which removed part of my jawbone. (A very very small part, but enough that the notion of talking to insurers didn't make sense for at least a week. I mean, even talking hurt.)

Then began the challenge of getting Anthem to reimburse me. They said they didn't have to talk to me at all. They needed to talk to he dental technicians or the insurance woman at the dental surgeon's office. That woman said that wasn't her job but mine. Anthem said they didn't have a way to talk to me.

And weeks went by and finally I just paid off the people I owed, but not without a whole lot of aggravation.

I think when this program gets instituted, the American people might finally wake up. They will find out what it is now and always has been like for people trying to deal with the middle men that our government often has standing between us and them,. And often when there are no middle men, it is even worse: listen and watch Jon Stewart on the Veteran's Affair situation of underwriting the needs of our disabled veterans: http://cnsnews.com/blog/stephen-gutowski/jon-stewart-blasts-government-run-health-care-veterans (Jon's show is just a tiny way of a scroll bar down, click the Big Button across the "Red Tape Diaries" video and you can hear and see that segment of his recent show.)

When Obama took office on Jan 20 2009, some 11,000 vets a year did not get their needs met for over 250 days after applying. Now that total of vets waiting for over 250 days has gone up to over 200,000! Even though the Veterans Affairs Department has been given important and needed extra monies, some 40 billion dollars worth, if Stewart can be believed on this issue.

[ProSense]

49. CNS news? Really?

Jon Stewart Blasts Government-Run Health Care - For Veterans

<...>

The cognitive dissonance required to square Stewart's justifiable outrage over government incompetence with his overwhelming desire to constantly expand government is colossal. His failure to realize there is a conflict between the two is astounding. The likelihood that he and his audience will take nothing away from this is depressing.

You're posting anti-government drivel at a RW site to make your point?

[truedelphi]

51. So caring about the vets issues is a RW issue now?

I don't think you mean that.

Anyway, i thought I had chosen CBS, not CNS. (I was using google.) My whole point in putting up that link was to get people to see Jon Stewart. My computer is majorly screwing up - and I can't even get over to Comedy Central to use the link there.

Stewart's people do careful fact checking, although sometimes they get too caught up in comedy to do that. But usually when it relates to money and finances, those people are top notch.

[ProSense]

52. Well,

"So caring about the vets issues is a RW issue now? I don't think you mean that. Anyway, i thought I had chosen CBS, not CNS."

...you obviously went to the site in order to provide directions to the video, but you didn't post CBS.

In any case, the OP is about Medicaid expansion not VA health care, a single payer system which is still the best in this country. The VA backlog has nothing to do with this thread.

If you want to talk about Veterans related to the OP, hundreds of thousands of uninsured veterans will become eligible for Medicaid under the expansion.

[ProSense]

50. YOu keep

"The picture it paints is no better or anything, but it is more accurate. Despite ProSense's repeated charges of my being 'misleading'. I caught my own mistake, and corrected it in a transparent fashion before he even noticed it. And as I said, the accurate numbers don't add up as 'affordable' for many working class people either, especially if they have a medical emergency/surgery/accident/major illness in any given year. '

...making a point that refutes your claim. You acknowledged it previously:

"Maybe most years they won't have that level of o-o-p expenses - just a few copays. But if there is one significant illness/accident/disease, those amounts rack up real quick."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2585575

No one will pay that on a yearly basis if at all. It's a limit, a cap in the event exhorbitant medical fees apply.

As I explained: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2585580

[babylonsister]

6. WHOA! Great news for so many people! Thanks, Pro! nt

[freshwest]

22. Many poor and vulnerable people and their caregivers rejoice at this news.

[babylonsister]

23. I'm pretty poor, so I'm right there with them!

[freshwest]

26. I'm not yet Medicaid poor, but I'm on the verge. He's helping us all out here.

[ProSense]

33. The Medicaid expansion will help millions

including many seniors.

[freshwest]

34. It benefits those not eligible for Medicaid by getting people help their families can't afford.

I know people who are below retirement age, past retirement age and those with children this will be helping. For many of these people, it's the difference between life and death. Obama has kept his promise to the ones who are not covered in media. This is a silent revolution taking place in their lives and those who care for them.

[ProSense]

56. Yes, it does

and think about all the bogus attacks the President endured over this law.

[freshwest]

57. And he still does. Many Democratic leaders and voters lives were threatened, as well.

Just remember that people who are out to hurt others can gain nothing of value from their actions, all they can do is create misery.

Misery is easy to create. It's the tool of the maliciously lazy.

Happiness takes work, it is the reward for a a life being well lived.

~ Anon.

[ProSense]

58. Out of the blue this morning, there was a scary ad on the TV.

Obamacare911 survival guide.

[freshwest]

59. Those Koch dollars are hard at work!

[ProSense]

61. Yup! n/t

[Cha]

38. Here's to being poor but

grateful for President Obama's ObamaCare, babylonsistah!

[bvar22]

12. Under the old Medicaid, one had to be completely broke,

... sell their home, empty their bank accounts, and everything else before they could apply for Medicaid.

It is my understanding that the new Medicaid Eligibility allows recipients to retain their assets (Savings account & home).
It appears that the only qualification is last year's income.
Can you verify that this is true?

[truedelphi]

37. I have been told that currently in some states,

Medicaid is available only to people who have young children. (Several folks at DailyKos informed me of this just over the last ten days.) I know here in California, the assets a person has are looked at. The Social Services people might allow the person or the couple to have Medicaid, but when the people die, the state will seize their assets!

I have several acquaintances whose health has gone down the tubes as they have paid off their home, and when illness hit, they lost their jobs, then lost their insurance, and didn't want to apply for benefits as they always had as a goal leaving their home to their kids.

I have no idea what is in store for us with the ACA. The other thing - one of my current main objections - sometimes people will get work, and will actually pull out of the lower income rank for a little while. But should they they lose the job, they will have to apply for the help, right?

All of us are in danger of being perpetual applicants, with form after form after form to fill out. And the penalties will be there too - I imagine if you misrepresent something due to forgetfullness or whatever, you will still be liable for the old Welfare/Unemployment office threat of 16 years in jail for your "conspiracy" of lying to the authorities.

[sheshe2]

24. Damn this is good news, ProSense!

We went through much with my dad last year, when we could not continue home care.

We had to use what little money he had on much of his care, then pay for his burial expenses, morbid I know. However he had to be determined indigent before we could get help. He is 92 this year.

This ruling will make care so much easier, as it should be.

[ProSense]

27. Yes.

Best to your Dad.

[sheshe2]

28. Thanks for that, ProSense.

My mom will be next in line, 87 now.

However she is doing so well and very active, gardening, works the food pantry and takes blood pressures at the council for the aging. She was a nurse and knows about the quality of care.

Bless her heart she is a Proud Democrat! We have some great discussions about what is happening.

Great news ProSense, I thank you.

[Cha]

39. It will help so many people, she..

Sorry about your Dad

[jwirr]

25. This should help the states.

[freshwest]

29. And people you and I know, jwirr. Also the poor and elderly. Obama hasn't forgotten them.

[ProSense]

32. Yes it will provide

a socio-economic boost to states.

<...>

It's not just Gov. Brewer who thinks Medicaid will be an economic stimulus. A study conducted for the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services found that the Medicaid expansion would bolster the state's economy from 2014 to 2021, resulting in new 23,000 jobs and increasing annual GDP by $1.4 billion. By infusing federal money into local economies to support employment, wages and consumer spending, the Medicaid expansion will be a net economic benefit to states and their residents.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/02/23/state-medicaid-expansion/1939713/

[WorseBeforeBetter]

40. Too bad it won't be expanded in NC, in spite of the DHHS study.

Gov. Pat McCrory signs bill to block expansion of Medicaid in North Carolina
http://fayobserver.com/articles/2013/03/06/1241706

Where each state stands on ACA's Medicaid expansion
http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/2012/11/09/MedicaidMap

[ProSense]

41. Yeah,

"Too bad it won't be expanded in NC, in spite of the DHHS study."

...there are still a few hold outs, but I have no doubt they'll eventually cave or end up with the federal government providing a solution.

NC also decided against an exchange, which means the federal government will be running the exchange in that state.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

42. Yep, I live here. I'm not sure of the benefits of....

state v. federal v. combo, but based on what I see on a daily basis, I'm thinking it's best the Feds run NC's exchange.

[ProSense]

55. The federal government

running the exchange will likely present an effective path to countering the hold outs, which is part of the reason they'll eventually cave.

[freshwest]

60. Thanks for this, it still gives hope to those living 'default exchanges' states.

[SidDithers]

47. Facts are good...

DURec.

Sid

[spanone]

53. k&r...

[treestar]

54. Good news!

Obamacare will start taking effect.

[ProSense]

62. Latinos’ Overwhelming Support For Obamacare Is Yet Another Obstacle To The RNC’s Hispanic Outreach

Latinos’ Overwhelming Support For Obamacare Is Yet Another Obstacle To The RNC’s Hispanic Outreach

By Tara Culp-Ressler

Several weeks ago, a Republican National Committee “autopsy” of the GOP’s 2012 election loss put forth a strategy for better engaging with diverse communities, explaining that Republicans must improve their outreach to Latino voters in order to attract new people to the party. That effort hasn’t had much success so far — as one Republican used a racial slur to describe Latinos, another decided to close his state’s Latino Affairs office, and several top members of the party have continued to dodge questions on comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship.

Now, yet another major obstacle to the GOP’s Hispanic outreach is emerging: Latinos’ strong support for health care reform. As the Los Angeles Times reports, Republicans likely won’t have much luck attempting to woo Latinos with messages about how they want to keep attempting to repeal Obamacare, which Hispanic voters support by a 2 to 1 margin:

Latinos, who have the lowest rates of health coverage in the country, are among the strongest backers of President Obama’s healthcare law. In a recent national poll, supporters outnumbered detractors by more than 2 to 1. Latinos also overwhelmingly see guaranteeing healthcare as a core government responsibility, surveys show.

Yet congressional Republicans continue to make repeal of the 2010 Affordable Care Act a top agenda item and have renewed calls for deep cuts in health programs such as Medicaid, which are very popular with Latinos. <...>

“This is going to hurt Republicans,” said Matt Barreto, cofounder of Latino Decisions, a nonpartisan national polling firm. “When Republicans keep saying they will repeal the health law, Latinos hear the party is going to take away their healthcare.”

About two-thirds of Latinos think the federal government should ensure that everyone has access to health insurance. According to Lorena Chambers, a Latina media consultant who was involved with the push to pass Obamacare, that’s largely because the Hispanic community understands the value of the United States’ social safety net...And since nearly 30 percent of Latino citizens and legal permanent residents are currently uninsured, and another 30 percent rely on public health insurance programs because they can’t access health care through their employers, the Hispanic community stands to benefit from Obamacare’s reforms. It makes sense, then, that many Latinos would be turned off by hearing Republicans declare that Obamacare will “literally” kill people, or that the GOP will keep trying to repeal health care reform no matter what.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/04/01/1801341/obamacare-latino-outreach/