This page was last updated on September 25, 2013.
Medicaid acceptance a pleasant surprise; Beaver County Times; September 22, 2013.
Below is a detailed critique of this column.
“We have to admit that we didn’t think Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett would entertain any notion to accept federal Medicaid expansion dollars. Not now. Not ever. That wouldn’t be very conservative-Republican of him, we thought.”
[RWC] “Medicaid acceptance a pleasant surprise?” For whom? The BCT supports robbing Peter to pay Paul. Gee, who would have guessed?
There is no such thing as “federal Medicaid expansion dollars.” All dollars, including the $85 billion/month the additional Federal Reserve is currently digitizing/printing, come from you and me via our paychecks, pension checks, et cetera.
The editorial failed to mention funding details. According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PG), “Under a Medicaid expansion, as proposed by [Obamacare], the federal government would pay the full cost of newly eligible Medicaid enrollees for three years. After that, the federal share gradually would decrease to 90 percent in 2020.”
The editorial fails to mention the Medicaid expansion increases taxes at least twice. First, the Medicaid expansion requires more federal-taxpayer dollars now to pay for the new spending. Second, as noted by the PG, the feds will gradually cut federal taxpayer dollars to fund the program. As a result, more local- and/or state-taxpayer dollars will be needed down the road to compensate. Short of spending cuts elsewhere in local/state budgets, there will be increased local/state taxes to compensate for the lost federal-taxpayer dollars. And what will happen to the federal taxpayer dollars no longer spent to fund the program? There will be no federal tax-rate cuts to reflect the reduced subsidy. Those taxes will go to fund some new program.
The BCT is a bit schizoid when it comes to medical care. While publishing editorials clearly in favor of a government-run, taxpayer-funded healthcare monopoly, in private the BCT claimed otherwise. When Obamacare became law and the BCT cheered (“Ethical standard” and “Empty promise”), the editorial page editor at the time chose not to respond when I asked him to reconcile the BCT celebrating Obamacare with his previous comments claiming BCT opposition to anything like Obamacare.
“And despite the fact his acceptance comes with a ransom note, we’re pleasantly surprised that there is something on the table to discuss. Granted, the pressure heaped upon the governor by such groups as the AARP, labor unions, hospital executives and his friends in the state Senate had to play a huge role in his coming around.”
[RWC] The BCT failed to note “AARP, labor unions, [and] hospital executives” are special interest groups that would benefit financially from throwing taxpayer dollars at medical insurance. AARP (formerly American Association of Retired Persons) is a lefty advocacy group funded by dues and revenue from selling various types of insurance.
As for “labor unions,” sometime after the days of Samuel Gompers the primary business of labor unions devolved into political advocacy/lobbying for leftist politicians and policies/programs. Representing employees is now simply a fund-raising chore labor union management must endure to provide funds for its lobbying and political activities. (Where’s the IRS office of tax-exempt entities when you need it? <g>) Heck, AFL-CIO CEO Richard Trumka conceded as much when he said, “I got into the labor movement not because I wanted to negotiate wages. I got into the labor movement because I saw it as a vehicle to do massive social change to improve the lots of people.” No one will mistake Mr. Trumka and other LUMsters for Samuel Gompers, founder of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), and AFL president for 38 years until his death. AFL-CIO management spent over $29.6 million in 2010 on “Political Activities and Lobbying.” In additional to the cash, the AFL-CIO has access to more than 11.7 million members (as of 2010) for “volunteer” political campaign work.
“Corbett critics have blasted him for his lack of compassion toward the poor. And even his own party has shown frustration with him. Rep. Gene DiGiroriamo, R-18, Bensalem, a proponent of expanding Medicaid for the working poor, said: ‘I want to keep an open mind on what he’s trying to do. That we’re now starting to talk about insuring the people and taking the federal money — I think that’s really a positive first step.’”
[RWC] “Lack of compassion toward the poor?” There is nothing compassionate about the government taking from one family’s paycheck to give to someone who didn’t earn it. There is nothing altruistic or charitable about telling government to rob Peter to pay Paul. Compassion is when a person freely chooses to use his own paycheck to help someone in need. Should people in need get help? Of course, but from private charities funded by voluntary contributions, not by confiscated earnings.
As for Messrs. Corbett and DiGiroriamo, Northeast Republicans are not usually known for their conservative positions. Do names like Brown, Chafee, Collins, Romney, Snowe, and Specter ring any bells? Most of today’s elected Northeast Republicans are more like JFK Democrats than they are conservatives. For example, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette quoted PA Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R-9) as saying, “It would be foolish to leave billions of Pennsylvania tax dollars in Washington, D.C., when that money can be used to expand health care coverage and access to the residents of our state in a fiscally responsible way.” The mentality that someone else will take the money if we don’t is one of the contributors to excessive spending and taxation and is not a part of conservative ideology. How about we stop sending “billions of Pennsylvania tax dollars [to] Washington, D.C.” for income redistribution and let Pennsylvania families decide how to spend their paychecks?
How many families get “nudged” into “the working poor” because of taxes they pay for stuff like Medicaid, Medicare, and Socialist Security (SS)? In other words, programs allegedly in place to help “the working poor” actually turn some families into “the working poor.” Remember, the feds confiscate 15.3% of a family’s paycheck right off the top for Medicare and SS, and local, state, and other federal taxes gobble up another 14%. According to the Tax Foundation (TF), a source often cited by the BCT, Pennsylvanians worked over three-and-a-half months in 2013 just to pay taxes (local, state, and federal). That’s about 29.3% of a family’s paycheck. That makes our current tax rate 6.0 times what it was in 1909 (4.9%), 13.6% higher than its highest point (25.8% in 1943) during World War II, and only about 3.7 percentage points lower than the peak of 33% in 2000. Were it not for the continuing bad economy, today’s tax rate would be even higher. The TF also reported Tax Freedom Day for the country as a whole for 2013 was five days later than in 2012. The same report added, “Americans will spend more in taxes in 2013 than they will on food, clothing, and housing combined.” Keep in mind these figures are taxes only. They don’t include user fees (tolls, vehicle registration, etc.), proceeds from state-run lotteries, et cetera.
“And ‘acceptance’ of Medicaid expansion would not be the words Corbett would use. His plan — similar to ones sought by Iowa and Arkansas — would take Medicaid expansion dollars to pay premiums for newly eligible residents so they can get private insurance in the new health care marketplace. He has been careful to say he does not want to expand Medicare [sic]. And for his actions, he predictably got blasted from both sides of the aisle.”
[RWC] I think “Medicare” in the penultimate sentence was meant to read “Medicaid.”
“No matter how anyone wants to spin it, the end result is that 520,000 more Pennsylvanians, according to Corbett’s camp, could get health insurance somehow, some way. And it seems that the federal Health and Human Services Department is willing to play ball with several states to get this off the ground.”
[RWC] Of course HHS “is willing to play ball with several states to get this off the ground.” The objective is to get people addicted to government-run medical coverage and just about anything that helps accomplish that goal will be okay. Why do you think the feds will pay 100% of the new bill for several years then dump part of the bill on the states? It’s like the drug dealer who gives “free” samples.
“Local legislators rightly are concerned on how to pay for all this — we all should worry about that — but this at least moves forward to solve the problem with national health care in which costs have skyrocketed with no solution in sight. The status quo wasn’t working and the Affordable Care Act, as it is written currently, isn’t the final solution.”
[RWC] “We should all worry about … how to pay for all this?” When did the BCT ever seriously “worry” about how to pay for stuff? In fact, you may recall an editorial in 2010 that mocked a U.S. senator for “worry[ing] about … how to pay for all this.” In “Off balance,” the BCT referred to Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) as “a petty dictator” and “the crazy uncle in the Senate attic.” Mr. Bunning’s crime? He tried to get Congress to follow the “Pay-Go” law Democrats passed and the BCT claimed to support in “Under control” and “Concrete steps.” You’ll note the BCT is so “worr[ied] about … how to pay for all this” the editorial didn’t mention any funding sources.
“National health care” is the reason medical care and insurance “prices have skyrocketed.” There are “solutions in sight” but, since they are not government centric, the BCT can’t see them. Please read my paper “Healthcare.”
“The Affordable Care Act” (a misnomer) is the official name of Obamacare. As I noted above, after President Obama signed the Obamacare bill, the BCT thought it was the cat’s meow. Now the BCT says Obamacare “isn’t the final solution?” What happened? Didn’t the BCT’s Obamacare exemption get approved? (Note: “The final solution” is one of those phrases most of us try to avoid.)
“But this is a start, and if it takes someone like Corbett calling it something that suits his sensibilities and the end result covers hundreds of thousands of people who otherwise wouldn’t be covered, that’s a good thing for everyone.”
[RWC] Ignoring the fact no program is ever “a good thing for everyone,” how could the BCT make such a claim when it has no idea of how to pay for it?
“So call it what you want. It beats doing nothing.”
[RWC] No, it does not. We should scale back Medicaid, not expand it.
© 2004-2013 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.