Last updated on 2014.02.02
Rep. Kathy Tyler (D-4/Big Stone City) gives Governor Dennis Daugaard one more good reason to accept the Affordable Care Act expansion of Medicaid: property tax relief!
The Governor has applied for a waiver from the Federal Government to allow South Dakota to expand Medicaid to the people below 100% of the poverty line. Bills with various levels of coverage have also been introduced. As I look at our County Commissioners meeting agenda for the week, one of the topics is County Assistance Applications. If we expand Medicaid, many of these applications would go by the wayside. Counties spend millions and millions of dollars each year for assistance to the poor. Think of the expansion as a form of property tax relief [Rep. Kathy Tyler, "Legislative Session #89, Week Three," Kathy's Corner, 2014.02.02].
I've said this all along about health care reform: the Affordable Care Act can save lives and save money. Getting over Obamaphobia will relieve counties of some indigent health care costs and ease your property tax burden.
Wingnuts need help thinking outside the box. Their box contains an unhealthy dislike and distrust of everything about Obama and an unwarranted phobia of gubmint overreach. Instead of throwing millions away in the hope of job creation,those dollars could be used to guarantee a healthier and happier populace. It might even get wingnuts added Democratic votes at election time. And for skeptical CINOS,darn it,it is just the decent,christ-like thing to do. Or so I've heard.
"I've said this all along about health care reform: the Affordable Care Act can save lives and save money."
Cory, I'd like to challenge your assumptions on this statement. The updated two year results from the Oregon uninsured/Medicaid lottery experiment don't show statistically significant differences in health outcomes between the uninsured and those receiving Medicaid (cholesterol, blood pressure, blood glucose, Framingham risk, smoking, obesity, etc.). Moreover, they didn't find statistically significant reductions in ER visits or hospital admissions. The study did find increased use of health screenings, but we don't seem to be seeing any benefit from that.
The study did find Medicaid beneficiaries saved money out of pocket (especially in the >30% of annual income range), but medical spending on Medicaid beneficiaries increased by nearly $1200 per person. So the burden for medical spending shifts from the patient to the taxpayer without much to show for it.
If all we're going to do is prevent financial hardship, perhaps free catastrophic health insurance is the better route; it would prevent a family from being devastated financially when illness or an accident strikes. We could funnel the remainder of taxpayer savings to actually fund things that do help improve health outcomes (like education, since behaviors account for 40% of our health outcomes pie, rather than the 10% of health care).
Kathy Tyler is my hero!