I haven't posted a diary in four years. I suppose that's because I haven't been this angry since George W. Bush was in office. Can someone, anyone, please explain to me why every Democratic public official in the country is not supporting the expansion of Medicaid made possible by the Affordable Care Act? And while you are at it, please explain to me why every Democrat in the country is not up in arms about their state governments turning down a 90% discount on Medicaid?
Shouldn't the Dems use this as an example of how the Tea Party, spend-nothing-at-all-costs ethos is harmful to the wellbeing of our nation and too extreme for moderates? Isn't this a bridge too far?
Write to your Governor, please? I did.
The federal government will pay for 100% of the Medicaid expansion from 2014 to 2017, declining to 90% after 2020. I've been trying to assemble a list of items I've purchased at a 90% discount. The only shorter list I've come up with is the one detailing the items one shouldn't buy at a 90% discount.
Yes, I know, state budgets are strapped for cash. Be that as it may, we do intend to spend our money on something, don't we? We make value decisions based on how we spend our money, and if 90% off Medicaid for 17 million uninsured Americans isn't a worthy expenditure, I'm not sure what is. If Democrats in state governments can't articulate the argument that 90% off Medicaid is a solid investment, let alone believe it, they're simply not politicians worth having in office, are they?
In the case of my state, Missouri, the state will have to pay about 80 million dollars in the next ten years while the federal government will kick in just over 2 BILLION dollars. That works out to about $20 per tax payer.
You likely know that as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, states have the right to opt out of the Medicaid expansion, which several states with Republican Governors have declared they will do. The federal government is giving the states money to spend on healthcare for poor people and some governors are refusing to accept it out of ideological purity or are grumbling that it might not be worth it--Hi there, Democrat Jay Nixon. If they can't find the money in the state budget, they'd have to raise state taxes by $20 per taxpayer (in MO at least) to collect billions in federal money for Medicaid to be expanded to people making up to 133% of the federal poverty line. These leaders would rather not accept tax money from the federal government than use it to provide incredibly poor people with with care. I simply do not understand and need someone to explain to me how this is at all ethical, especially when every state can set its own income level for Medicaid accessibility. Again, shouldn't the Dems use this as an example of how the Tea Party, spend-nothing-at-all-costs ethos is harmful to the wellbeing of our nation and too extreme for moderates? Isn't this a bridge too far?
Here is another example: Arkansas Medicaid only covers parents making less than ~20% of the federal poverty level: for a family of three that's (.20*$19,090) = $3,818. So, if your family income is four grand, you can't get Medicaid. If you are trying to feed your family of three on one-fifth of my grad student stipend, you are expected to buy you own health insurance. Are you kidding me?
~~~~
So, if you agree with me, and I think you probably do, write to your governor. We can make them understand that refusing to support the Medicaid expansion is unacceptable. Most of our state governments are currently in a state of flux on this issue. Now, while positions are inchoate, politicians are looking for pressure from constituents on what to do. If we act now, we can change things for the better.