Missouri lawmakers defy common sense in health care for poor
House Budget Committee Chairman Allen Icet, R-Wildwood
Missouri lawmakers should not let ideology stand in the way of health care for the working poor.
Gov. Jay Nixon and the Missouri Hospital Association have come up with a plan to extend health insurance to nearly 35,000 working parents without spending a dime of general revenue. With unemployment soaring and more than 725,000 Missourians uninsured, the Legislature must not waste this chance.
Unfortunately, House Republicans seem prepared to do just that. On Tuesday, just 24 hours after Mr.Nixon announced his plan, the GOP-controlled House Budget Committee voted against a proposal that would allow hospitals to voluntarily increase their tax payments to fund Medicaid expansion.
The committee vote is by no means the last word on the issue — common sense still has two months to prevail. Between now and the end of the legislative session in May, surely legislators can come to understand that hospitals are handing the state a great gift: voluntarily making advance tax payments to leverage $93 million in additional federal Medicaid funds.
Hospitals are willing to do this because they know that providing coverage to the uninsured is more efficient and less expensive than waiting until they get sick and resort to being seen in an emergency room.
Republican lawmakers won’t hear of it.
House Budget Committee Chairman Allen Icet, R-Chesterfield, told Post-Dispatch reporters Monday that he is philosophically opposed to extending coverage to “able-bodied adults.”
The able-bodied adults often are single mothers struggling to raise two children on less than $9,000 a year.
Under Missouri law, that mother could earn no more than $3,700 — one-fifth of the poverty level — if she wanted to qualify for coverage. Mr. Nixon’s plan would allow her to earn as much as $9,000 and still qualify. That’s still less than half the federal poverty level for a family of three.
Nationally, the average cost of employer-provided health insurance for a single person is $4,700. But it might as well be $1 million for those parents, since virtually no one earning less than $9,000 a year is offered health insurance through his or her job.
The economics of Medicaid expansion are painfully simple. Most of the cost is paid by the federal government. The rest comes from hospitals.
Not a dime comes from general revenue — the tax dollars paid by ordinary citizens to fund their government.
Not only is expansion good for poor, uninsured parents, it helps to create jobs. Mr. Nixon’s proposal could create or retain 1,300 jobs in the state, according to a Washington University health economist.
Why, at a time when the needs are great and the opportunity to help is painless, would Republican lawmakers turn their backs on parents living well below the poverty line? Good question.
Republicans say they are reluctant to take on long-term financial commitments that could cost more in years to come, especially when revenue is uncertain. But that ignores the countercyclical demand for programs such as Medicaid, which is strongest at times of economic weakness.
Part of the answer also is no doubt political. Mr. Nixon, a Democrat, campaigned on a pledge to reverse ill-considered Medicaid cuts pushed through by Republican lawmakers in 2005. Republicans don’t want to admit those cuts were a mistake or give Mr. Nixon a victory on his signature issue.
Their ideology and politics could cost poor, working parents a chance to get health care that they desperately need. That would be a real tragedy for all Missourians.
Single mothers with two children…where are the fathers? Has Missouri never heard of CHILD SUPPORT? This sounds like a stimulus for irresponsible fathers.
Government needs to get out of the charity business. You people use little common sense when spewing out your carp. Yes, there are poor people, but there are also many good people who step up to the plate to help them. Helping the person next to you is common sense. Sitting back, munching on Cheetos, watching the View and letting the government help that person is just plain lazy. Using your twisted, insane logic, the government would be responsible for giving all people the following:
* food
* water
* shelter
* employment
* car
* sexual partner
* Cheetos
* Internet access
This is the logic of children. The government is incapable of helping. It is too big and filled with too many lazy people to be effective. That is common sense. What government should encourage is for more people to help each other. That is highly effective, efficient and rewarding for everyone. This is common sense.
Turn off that monitor, go outside and do something. To sit inside, looking out at the homeless guy digging through the garbage can and telling us that government needs to do something about it is incredibly lazy.
After reading the first two comments about this issue, it saddens me to think a quote attributed to the French may have been right. “America is the only country ever to go from Colony to World Power without passing through civilization”.
“The economics of Medicaid expansion are painfully simple. Most of the cost is paid by the federal government. The rest comes from hospitals.
Not a dime comes from general revenue — the tax dollars paid by ordinary citizens to fund their government.”
According to the writer, the federal government and hospitals can magically make money appear(the fed can but that isn’t a good thing). Where in the world do you think the feds and hospitals get their money? Hmmm, let me think….oh yeah from tax payers and patients.
Hospitals would “voluntarily” contribute this tax? Give me a break, they won’t even give you an aspirin for free.
This money will be passed on, like everything else, to the rest of America. And I’ve got news for you, most of us can’t afford it either.
I see what you did there. Anyone who opposes nanny-state welfare and govt healthcare is doing so for purely ideological (in a bad sense) reasons. But those who support nanny-statism (an ideology) apparently do it for some other reason.
When the first sentence of an editorial is as intellectually dishonest and hypocritical as this one, do you really expect readers to bother with the rest?
And speaking of intellectual dishonesty, the phrase “save or create” has got to be one of the phoniest constructs horked up by politicians in a decade.
“Why, at a time when the needs are great and the opportunity to help is painless, would Republican lawmakers turn their backs on parents living well below the poverty line? Good question….Their ideology and politics could cost poor, working parents a chance to get health care that they desperately need. That would be a real tragedy for all Missourians.”
With few if any exceptions, few and far between, Republican ideology is simple: “anything remotely related to sex gives me a headache because it’s dirty and so I’m against it, and the only principles and rules I have are “no more taxes for my rich Republican friends who keep me in office because I dont want to or cant do anything else, and everyone else can go to hell in a handbasket because I dont care if it doesnt affect me.”
To think that reason might affect these principles, or rather lack of principles, is giving them way to much credit, but I know you had to write about it anyhow, and good that you did, so people with principles will know how really messed-up the Republicans are.
I’m able bodied,work 40 hours and support a family of 5 on 80% of federal poverty level. I can’t afford my employer insurance. I could pay for it, I suppose, if I were to cut out my electricity and water bill payments. I am hoping that they pass this for those making 50% of poverty level, but 80% is still POVERTY!!! I am buying a house - $300 per month (less than most rent), I walk to work, walk my kids to school, walk to the library, and pinch pennies at every opportunity, but I still need coverage for management of my arthritis pain, for antibiotics for my rotten teeth, and so I can get discs in my back worked on where it is severely pinching the nerves in both my legs. These things need attention so I can CONTINUE to work and not become permanently disabled!!!
This is as good a deal as one can expect. Anytime you can spread your liability around to other sources you are making a wise economic move. It doesn’t cost Missouri taxpayers the big hit, it spreads it around through the Feds and the same with the hospital contribution which they will save from the extra emergency room visits and other more expensive procedures those without health insurance utilize in their facilities.
Taxpayers also save in the long run by not having to fund increased health costs due to poorer health care for those without insurance. If this isn’t a good idea than the whole idea of health care, spreading specific risk over general need, is a bad idea in its conception.