Taking Medicaid from newly covered groups would be a backward decision
As Congress wrestles with replacing the Affordable Care Act, a big question is where they will finally land with Medicaid.
Rolling back Medicaid hurts our country’s safety net by taking coverage away from millions of Americans — many of whom are low-income, working adults who aren’t offered health insurance through their employers or who work intermittent, contract jobs — and would bring back an antiquated, out-of-touch thinking about poverty that classifies the poor into “deserving” versus “undeserving.”
Historically, children, the elderly and the disabled have been considered deserving of receiving assistance and, accordingly, have received health care coverage earlier and in higher numbers. Meanwhile, nondisabled adults were considered undeserving. The assumption was that they either didn’t want to work or were not making enough effort to find a job. Providing aid to them, the thought went, only encouraged their continued unemployment.
Prior to implementation of the Affordable Care Act, nondisabled adults with no dependents didn’t qualify for Medicaid — even if they earned little or no income at all. In states like Texas, which didn’t expand Medicaid coverage, this is still the case. In these states, when nondisabled adults don’t secure health care coverage, it is perceived as a matter of their own choice — without regard for the consequences.
U.S. Rep. Raul Labrador from Idaho – another state that didn’t expand Medicaid — channeled this older way of thinking recently when he said, “Nobody dies because they don’t have access to health care.”
States that did expand Medicaid, by contrast, offer health care coverage to childless adults who make under $16,643 a year. This expansion covered three kinds of individuals:
Those who have a health condition severe enough to make them unable to work full time but not enough to qualify them disabled.
Those who are freelancing, doing contract work, in between jobs, looking for jobs or working low-wage jobs that don’t provide the benefit of health care coverage.
Those not working outside the home to care for a sick or elderly family member.
Medicaid expansion demonstrated a shift toward a way of thinking about poverty more attuned to the 21st century, when the lack of full-time, stable employment is not really a personal choice. Estimates are that 34 percent of U.S. workers are freelance or contract employees. This is a big contrast to what we grew accustomed to during the second half of the 20th century. Freelance and contract work is not always dependable or available at 40 hours per week. In addition, blue-collar and low-wage jobs — even if full-time — are the least likely to offer health insurance coverage as a benefit. Even when health care coverage is offered, the premium costs are prohibitive to some workers.
Taking Medicaid benefits away from the newly covered groups would be a backward choice. Medicaid is crucial for the safety net of our country. Higher rates of coverage benefit those who need health care and their communities. They also translate into fiscal benefits for all of us. Coverage saves money in the long run, especially for the communities and states that shoulder most of the costs of those who can’t afford coverage. The lack of health care coverage for those who can’t afford it also raises health costs for everyone.
GOP senators in states that expanded Medicaid should be asking themselves how rolling back Medicaid expansion will impact their constituents. For some of them, it is a matter of life or death. Moving forward, lawmakers must preserve the Medicaid eligibility standards in the states that expanded Medicaid. In states that didn’t expand Medicaid as part of ACA, lawmakers should move toward expanded eligibility for adults making less than $16,643 per year.
It’s time to stop making policy decisions on who is most “deserving” and do the important work of saving lives by keeping Medicaid expansion in place.
Vitriol has been spewed by Rush Limbaugh for 30 years, the mean clique of Fox News pundits for over 20, Alex Jones for nearly 20, and the tea party for eight. They have edited the news to glorify right-wing ideology, made up conspiracies involving liberals that result in innocent people being attacked, characterized us as villains, demeaned our accomplishments including those benefiting conservatives, and depicted our policy of inclusion
Re: June 15 article, “Foreshadowing fight, Straus rejects bathroom bill, school choice.”
I couldn’t agree with Joe Straus more. As he has said before, the bathroom bill is a solution in search of a problem. Transgender people are not going to be going into restrooms and molesting anyone — and there are already laws on the books that would protect women from being attacked. It is a made-up issue of the religious right — and Dan Patrick is pandering to a conservative minority with this issue.
The same can be said for his support of school vouchers. I am the product of 12 years of religious education — and my parents paid my way. If a parent doesn’t want to send their child to a public school, that is their right — but it is not my job to pay for their child. Our public schools need our tax dollars.