Single Page
Will Alaskans lose access to Medicaid through federal savings?In 2010, over 135,000 Alaskans were enrolled in Medicaid. That’s one in every five Alaskans, a number greater than the combined populations of the boroughs of Fairbanks and Juneau. Of these, 65 percent were children. One in every two babies born in the state is paid for by Medicaid. Fast forward to the year 2014. An additional 32,000 Alaskans will be eligible for Medicaid based on health reform legislation. If Alaska State Senate Bill 5 passes, Denali KidCare will also be expanded to allow 1,300 more children access to needed healthcare. The need will not stop growing there. Recent reports show that businesses are still not hiring. This means that as the economy continues to stagnate and more middle-class workers remain unemployed, demand for public assistance programs including Medicaid will undoubtedly rise. Medicaid is a needed safety net, not only for low-income Alaskans, but for the middle class too. But the future of Medicaid looks dire. The FY2012 budget resolution adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives, proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., contains significant cuts that will greatly reduce federal contributions to state programs. By how much? The plan calls for cuts of 5 percent in 2013, 15 percent by 2014, and 33 percent by 2021. Families USA, the national organization for health care consumers, recently released a report that shows just how much the so-called “savings” could cost state economies, jobs, and business activity. Alaska alone could lose 630 jobs in 2013, 1,890 jobs by 2014, and over 4,000 jobs by 2021. Reductions in state business activity follow a similar, disastrous trend – Alaska could lose $70 million in 2012, an additional $213 million by 2014, and then nearly $500 million by 2021. That’s 6,520 jobs and dangerously close to $1 billion. And those are just the figures directly associated with Medicaid spending. The real ripple effect starts when the state loses the infusion of “new” money for Medicaid expenditures from the federal government. This loss spreads like wildfire through the state economy with losses in not only the amount of healthcare services provided, but vendor contracts, and employee income, along with related consumer goods and services spending in other sectors. The report describes how the loss of jobs and business activity then translates into a reduction of the federal and state tax base, which, in turn, reduces revenues and creates even more pressure for cuts to Medicaid and other public assistance programs. The report also poignantly outlines how spending on healthcare services provides an even greater stimulus to the economy than other policies. For example, tax cuts for the wealthy and for big business do little because that money is rarely spent, is not circulated in the economy, and is not being used to hire additional workers. What about those 135,000 people, those 88,000 children already on Medicaid? Nearly 90 percent of Alaskans who are either uninsured or insured with Medicaid are workers or dependents of workers. Workers who are already struggling to make ends meet in the stagnant economy. When Alaska doesn’t receive enough funding to pay for their healthcare, where do you think they are going to get the money from? The Ryan budget plan doesn’t just pass costs on to states, but directly onto families and individuals exactly when they can least afford it. In order to make up for lost federal funding, Alaska would need to either greatly increase taxes or cut eligibility and reduce coverage for thousands of beneficiaries. This too has a ripple effect. Alaskans already have a tough time accessing healthcare due to a fragmented delivery system and some of the highest costs in the world. When assistance is reduced, low-income Alaskans become less likely to even try. Paying out of pocket for a whole family is simply not an option in hard economic times. Reduced medical coverage leads to a lower quality of life. It leads to shorter life spans. And it leads to long-term health consequences that impair a person’s ability to secure a good job and contribute to the state economy. The human and economic costs far outweigh the “savings.” These savings are no more than a scam and a shortsighted attempt to mislead the rest of us.
Grayson nailed the GOP health plan: "Die and die quickly." No wonder they had to get rid of him. Please, there is no "hyperinflation" nor deflation: Give it up! The deficit was not that much of a threat, but the return of recession will be. We continue to spend 4X what the rest of the world spends on "defense": Eisenhower told you why over 50 years ago. Tax breaks for millionaires lead to strange stories about Sarah Palin: She was spending the $640,000 Obama and Congress gave her on a bus and a mysterious trip. How about that million-dollar car crash? Tax breaks at work. Taxes don't pay for any government services, period. Not for Medicare. Not for Medicaid. Not for roads. Not for guns. Not one thing. The Grace Commission told Ronald Reagan that more than thirty years ago. Where have you been? The ONLY function of taxation in this crazy fiat money system is to sop up extra cash and help curb inflation. Always remember---"Federal Reserve Notes" are not money. They are privately issued debt coupons that belong to the Federal Reserve Banks. Thus, when I make a $1000 and use it to buy a new couch, I have "earned back" a thousand dollars worth of debt and traded that "lesser debt" to someone else in exchange for---you guessed it---MORE debt. I don't like the defense spending any more than you do, but it is rather necessary to recognize that we are "spending" debt and that taxation does nothing to improve or alter the situation. We bemoan, and rightly so, the loss of jobs and the potential for loss of access to health care that our nation's profligate spending habits have led us to consider. So what are we going to do about it? Simply cutting the defense budget is not going to be enough to cover the debts our nation has incurred through the expansion of our social services base. It is doubtful that 300 million plus Americans are going to agree to drastically reduce their lifestyle to the point that a credible military presence, as the ultimate expression of economic and political will, in the world is unnecessary to securing the raw materials that build our lives from that world. It is also doubtful that the other umpty-ump billion people on the planet will just suddenly decide to give the US these raw materials at a reasonable price because we're such nice people - and especially doubtful when their choice is between selling these material to us, or to someone who isn't so nice, but really wants them. Tax the hell out of the rich? Sure, that will work for a little bit, but at some point the rich, like anybody else, are going to say "Screw this, what's the point of working this hard if my tax burden keeps going up and up and I can't keep up with the cash flow necessary to keep all these balls in the air? We could always, oh, say, support the development of a mine and replace the jobs lost in one area with jobs created in another. But mines aren't pretty, and we like pretty, don't we? Okay, so, other than a recognition that the world doesn't always work the way we want it to and that compromise, which entails loss, is necessary, what's the plan? Silly article. World ends. Poor hit hardest. The deficit is unsustainable. Hyperinflation or deflation will wreak far more havoc than cutting medicaid. If you want to cut something else- fine. We are currently 40% over budget. Let's raise the retirement age for social security gradually from 65 to 70 or so. HUGE savings from one program. My husband went out the first year they offered Individual Retirement Accounts and put the maximum ($2000) in for each of us, proudly proclaiming that he had done the responsible thing and was saving for our future in a tax free retirement account. I said, what? No! No, I don't want to do that! Rats! Pay the fine, whatever it is, and get my share out now!!! We argued. Obviously. I said, "Are you crazy? Whatever the government gives, it can take away. They'll increase the age limits on when you can access that money. The inflation they cause will eat away any value it has. No, honey, just use the money now with no strings attached, even if you have to take the tax loss up front." He kept his IRA. I liquidated mine, lost 10% to do so, and invested the remainder of the money back in 1982. We eventually divorced. Imagine my amazement when just a year or so ago, I got a phone call from my Ex? He was chortling over the phone. He admitted that I'd been right all along and that yes, indeed, the government had done it to him, just as I said it would. Massive inflation, massive changes in the program requirements, higher age limits, the whole nine yards. The take home message? Never trust the government with money. Ever. And don't let them gain any control over your private finances with tax breaks or other promises, because they will find a way to mess it up and steal from you some more. Now, it should come as no surprise that they lied and destroyed the Social Security system and plundered the money and left us holding wind. That is what government does---predictably, monotonously, repeatedly. Anyone who paid into Social Security thinking it was "safe" or that they'd have access to it when they needed it, is a fool. I hate to say it, just as I said it to my husband way back when---anything the government touches turns to crap. It always winds up the same for the Little Man. They steal it, and we are left with the results. The only way to break even is to minimize your interface with all things that have anything to do with the government. Please note that after they broke all their promises and squandered our Social Security money, they have the gall to call it an "entitlement". Let's tell the children the truth. Big Brother took our money and spent it. Now he doesn't want to admit that he's liable for his actions. Instead, he wants to tell you that the contract he made and forced upon you is just, well, wind. He wants you to think that you are getting "something for nothing" from the government, an "entitlement" when you draw your Social Security. They also want to keep people working until their old, old age, and they want to justify all this because----why? Because Jimmy Carter, that infinitely wicked man, spent our Social Security Fund money like a drunken sailor, and still doesn't have the good sense to be ashamed to show his fat, ugly face. I say that we give every penny that everyone put into Social Security plus interest back to the people who contributed---one lump sum settlement, tax free. I say that parents and surviving children should be able to collect on the money owed to dead spouses and adult children who died, too, so that the government doesn't just shovel that money into its pockets forever and ever. Then we won't have to worry about Social Security any more. |
Comments