The Trump administration is also warning all 50 states that it could freeze funding for their Medicaid fraud units unless they investigate and prosecute fraud by providers.
Oz said that the administration needs California to clarify $630 million in billing, $500 million in home health services and $200 million in “questionable expenditures” linked to coverage for undocumented immigrants, he claimed. They are not eligible for Medicaid, however.
The move is similar to the one the administration took in February suspending Medicaid payments to Minnesota.
This has nothing to do with “fraud”, and everything to do with Californian and Minnesotan resistance to the DHS and ICE incursions of their cities, and punishing their citizens for daring to vote against Trump. California’s Republican voters are just collateral damage to them:
As of 2024, California had a higher Medicaid enrollment rate than the US overall. Enrollment in the state peaked in 2023 at 38.7%
In California, enrollees are categorized into 5 different categories:
Children
Pregnant women and parents or caretakers
Adults without dependent children
People with disabilities (including both adults and children)
Californians across party lines overwhelmingly support Medi-Cal. Eighty percent (80%) of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and 62% of Republicans agree that the program should generally stay as it is today.
“Doctor” Oz is no longer just a daytime TV huckster, he’s driving the policy that removes health care from pregnant women, children, and senior citizens. These people are black-hearted, red-eyed evil - “Do what we say, or we’ll take away the taxpayer-funded healthcare you paid for.”
I wish I didn’t have to say this but, duh. Anyone smart enough to know lemmy exists knows all this.
(This is not a statement saying you shouldn’t say what you said. It is an endorsement of the statement you made)
There’s an important difference between knowing something and being able to demonstrate it. It might seem obvious to us, but if we wanted to convince someone who doesn’t agree, we at least have something external to corroborate the claim.
The exercise also strengthens my own knowledge with details I didn’t have before. For example, I had a feeling that there were plenty of CA Republicans that like Medicaid, but now I know roughly how many and that in fact, they were polled specifically about their preference for the program.
I was mainly referring to the “this has nothing to do with fraud” part. I should have been more explicit. The rest is great data from good research. That part I applaud.
This has nothing to do with “fraud”, and everything to do with Californian and Minnesotan resistance to the DHS and ICE incursions of their cities, and punishing their citizens for daring to vote against Trump. California’s Republican voters are just collateral damage to them:
https://usafacts.org/answers/how-many-people-are-on-medicaid-in-the-us/state/california/
https://www.chcf.org/resource/poll-californian-attitudes-medi-cal-covered-ca-federal-cuts/
“Doctor” Oz is no longer just a daytime TV huckster, he’s driving the policy that removes health care from pregnant women, children, and senior citizens. These people are black-hearted, red-eyed evil - “Do what we say, or we’ll take away the taxpayer-funded healthcare you paid for.”
I wish I didn’t have to say this but, duh. Anyone smart enough to know lemmy exists knows all this. (This is not a statement saying you shouldn’t say what you said. It is an endorsement of the statement you made)
There’s an important difference between knowing something and being able to demonstrate it. It might seem obvious to us, but if we wanted to convince someone who doesn’t agree, we at least have something external to corroborate the claim.
The exercise also strengthens my own knowledge with details I didn’t have before. For example, I had a feeling that there were plenty of CA Republicans that like Medicaid, but now I know roughly how many and that in fact, they were polled specifically about their preference for the program.
I was mainly referring to the “this has nothing to do with fraud” part. I should have been more explicit. The rest is great data from good research. That part I applaud.
He was fired from Columbia medical by a petition signed by real doctors.