District 13 Senate candidate Reynold Nesiba shows his ability to lead the conversation all Democrats should have to win back the Legislature this year. Candidate and economist Nesiba talks cold hard cash and the millions South Dakota's spite-blinded Republicans are leaving on the table:
$224,000,000.......in 2022 that's how much MORE South Dakotans will be paying into Medicaid than we are receiving in benefits because of our failure to expand. Just because we opt out of benefits does NOT mean we don't have to all pay our Medicaid taxes. So the SD legislature and governor are basically agreeing for us to pay more in taxes but to simply forgo many of the benefits and instead let those benefits accrue to states that do expand.....states mostly dominated by Democrats. "Ha, that will show them!"
...Remember how passionately Thune fought for federal funds for Ellsworth when it was threatened with closure? Remember all the talk of how many jobs would be created by those federal funds and how SD communities would benefit? How come he, the Governor, and the GOP-dominated legislature are no longer looking out for the best financial interests of South Dakotans? [Reynold Nesiba, Facebook post, 2014.03.26]
Governor Mickelson used to say that if it's gonna rain, you might as well hold out your bucket. Medicaid is raining its expansion on willing states, but Republicans are kicking the bucket around the yard. Grown-up candidates like Nesiba are telling Republicans to stop playing games and do what's right for South Dakota.
Until the tribes are given power over Medicaid disbursements for their own, South Dakota should be denied participation in ObamaCare.
South Dakota tried to get a waiver to the Affordable Care Act so that many more people could get medicaid however the Federal Government would not grant the waiver. The present federal administration apparently thinks the Affordable Care Act should be implimented with no waviers to anyone. If the Obama administration truly cared about the poorest in South Dakota they would have granted that waiver, that as I recall would have insured about 60% of those not covered presently by Medicaid, so that the poorest of the poor could have received Medicaid.
But, no political advantage to be gained in Republican state, therefore no waiver.
A question: "What 60% of South Dakotans would have been covered under the waiver? What 40% would not have been covered? Just asking for more information!
My understanding is that the waiver would have covered those with incomes of up to 100% of the povery level, those deemed to poor to purchase insurance thru the Affordable Health Care Act. The, as I remember, remaining 40% earned incomes that were above the 100% poverty level but below the income threshhold for the AHCA.
Joseph, the federal HHS will give South Dakota a waiver, but what you're suggesting isn't a waiver -- it's against the law and impossible to grant.
A waiver is adding work requirements, education, job search, using federal Medicaid funds to buy coverage on the exchange rather than Medicaid, etc.
The administration and GOP legislators have suggested that they'd go for covering those people who are 0-100% of poverty, if they could opt (waive??) out of the 101-138% of poverty.
But to simply exclude half of the uninsured isn't allowed by the ACA. It would be against the law and HHS couldn't do it if they wanted, and if they did they would have to go back and re-figure the program with the 30 or so states that have complied. So the South Dakota GOP are asking for something that's impossible to grant.
They aren't being refused a waiver. That's a straw dog.
And they are hurting the South Dakota economy -- and hurting 48,000 people in the process. It's the biggest public policy issue of the decade for South Dakota, and we're botching it big time.
You are correct Bernie, way to many South Dakotans think that the governor is just doing swell with this loosing money thing because that is what republicans all do in government and we are used to it. When it comes to a government business model, they get a big fat F. They simply do not care if it puts the state in the deeper red or not because they can always steal the money from the disabled, the children, the working poor and the elderly. Take a look at what Wisconsin did with the rail system or Ohio, and especially, Florida all republican governors just like Denny that cannot do a balance sheet. It is not so much that they are dumb, they are just republicans.
I think next December in the Governor's budget message, regardless of whether he is re-elected or not, Daugaard will totally embrace the ACA. Why would he not? Through 2022 it is a cash cow for South Dakota and most likely by then the preventive advocacy of the Act and the greater pool of insured will help to seriously lessen the future budgetary strains both for the Feds and the States in terms of the forecasted burgeoning Medicaid costs into the next decade.
That said, he should have already embraced ACA totally, but my guess is that his first reluctance and now piece meal attempt are his political ways of trying to "have his cake and eat it too" with the ACA, while at the same time not offending the "Tea Party" element of his Party, where he now has a "TP" challenger.
If Kasich of Ohio and Brewer of Arizona can embrace ACA then certainly Daugaard could eventually find its relevancy and solvency as well. I am not a Daugaard apologist, but I think I know what he is up to. His political playbook is on the wall for all of us to read if you care to notice; but in the mean time, Nesiba is correct to make his point…. Go get them!
Interesting, all the other waivers to the AHCA are not provided for in the bill either and my point is that with politicians its all or none. Democrats say insure them all or none and Republicans say insure some or none. Neither party really has the interests of the poor at the forefront unless they can be used politically. Rest assured if President Obama wanted to help the poor of South Dakota he would have just issued an excutive order or waiver(as he has done most frequently with this act )and they could have been insured, but we are a solid republican state so he has no interest, (which is his perogative) and I don't have a problem with his refusing the waiver. But to place the blame totally on republicans is just wrong, the democrats are also to blame. The President wins cause he takes a shot at a red state, the Govenor wins because he does not increase spending on Medicaid, and the only loser is the poor of South Dakota.
As a disclaimer, I am neither a Republican nor a member or the Tea Party, just an American citizen tired of all the lies told by politicians and those who blindly follow.
Oh and Jerry, both political parties get f's in government, the Republicans in South Dakota and the Democrats at the national level(or after 5 years is it still President Bush's fault).
Don't ya just know it joseph g that it is W's fault. The sands of Iraq are red with the blood of American and Iraqi innocent and all for the moolah. Cheney, Bush, Rummy and Condi are all war criminals that could be arrested and put on court in the Hauge for crimes against humanity, if they go out of the United States. That says fault in my eyes and the eyes of the world. Hell, even your boy Putin can travel freely, think of that one for a minute.
Obama cannot issue an executive order for something like Medicaid expansion as that is impossible for a President to do, any president. Nope, your pitiful republican party has put us deep in the hole joseph g, and we are likely to be here for a long time. The only thing that saves your behind right now is the laws and social programs that the democrats put in so many years ago like the Social Security you enjoy along with the Medicare, thank a democrat for that and that goes for the ACA right now. There a 6 million of us that are going to be covered affordably, thanks democrats!
About the waiver, why does the governor that South Dakota is so special that they just can't follow the law like the rest of the states? Ist that the governors way of saying "we care a little bit, but we don't care enough".
Several year ago when ACA became law along with expanded Medicare, Sen Adlelstein and I had this discussion about the economic benefits of ACA and the Medicare expansion. Incidentally, Stan was for Medicare expansion.
Stan's take on this at the time was that there maybe sizeable cost to adjusting to the new law, but that the overall impact to the state and citizens would in the long run be beneficial.
The concept being that basically when federal money flows to the state, it helps the economy, whether it be Ellsworth or the reservations. You may not agree with these expenditures, that is not the point, the point is that everybody prospers.
I agree with Winston, at some point the governor and the legislature are going to have to accept medicare expansion, the waiver the governor sought was merely an attempt to start that process.
Like most things South Dakota is good at being last in, this will be the next one.
not worth it
And not having health insurance puts our system of care at risk. Yes, the expansion is worth it.
joseph g, that is hypocritical of you. You have Medicare and you have Social Security and you do not want the younger people to have coverage as it is not worth it. How would you like it if we all would say the same about the over 65 crowd, then we could see what you say about its worth.
The health of South Dakotans isn't worth it according to joseph g., we already know that, it's a fact.
Now, let's change that opinion.
Actully guys, go back and look at old posting, I believe in universal health care and I'm saying neither Dems nor Repubs care wether poor South Dakotans get health care. This is why I hate conversations with progressives, except those who know me. Your single minded attitudes with an inablility to see both sides are driving America to ruin. You put words in other peoples mouths and then claim them as fact, anything that does not fit in your world you declare to be bad. Time to leave Madville again.
adios joseph g. I will miss you...maybe not...no, I will.
how many of the 48,000 will either die or have more serious illness as a result of 1.) current state republican obstruction of Medicaid expansion, and 2.) delayed Medicaid expansion should a re-elected republican governor see the light?
there are also 250,000 thousand people denied care in north carolina and 400,000 in texas, as examples.
not worth it??
republicans call Obama a stupid ape and spend millions trying to spin Benghazi against hillary. and this guy, jos g is spinning democrats as at-fault for not taking our governor's offer so our governor can blame the coming death and disease on Obama???
Actually joseph g thompson, Democrats do care whether poor South Dakotans get health care. I'm a Democrat and I care as well as every Democrat I know cares. Rick Weiland care. Health care for the poor and all Americans has been the core of our campaigns since President Obama announced for the presidency. That is totally reckless comment.
Although universal healthcare is a great concept, that is not what we are discussing here, a nice attempt at deflection.
We are talking about Medicaid and Medicaid expansion and the woeful ignorance of the governor and state legislators turning down economic development that actually helps its citizens and not just a handful of cronies that spend millions to build bankrupt businesses.
I just read John T.'s great blog about Medicaid expansion. He writes this from a business point of view. I have read his posts in the past and wonder how in the world he can be a republican as he has business sense and understands the actual value of an influx of capital and what it means to the complete economy of the state, instead of EB-5 gimmicks. Check it out, it is certainly worth the read and spells out clearly what our state is missing. Republicans would be wise to listen to a businessman instead of an ideologue when it comes to matters such as these. John T. should consider a primary challenge to Ms. NOem.
Flyover Wire said it months ago.
http://flyoverwire.com/2013/12/06/what-would-the-medicaid-expansion-cost-south-dakota/
Thanks Jerry. Very curious that Governor Daugaard is so stuck on economic development yet can't see the financial gains to be reaped by Medicaid expansion. My fav comment to this piece in another quarter was: "duh." I doubt that I'll ever run for office, just can not make myself beg for money. This is probably the medium where I can do some good.
It is amazing how wingnuts rail at socialistic programs while balancing state budgets with.......wait for it.......oh hell,you know already.
Roger, that hits home. You are very right. Aberdeen has a huge stain. As a result of the GOED EB-5 program. I cannot tell you how much I am embarrassed about inviting hundreds of people to Aberdeen because of a thousand jobs available. Then we send them away with no paycheck.
Good link, Larry. I had to sort through a ton of stuff to latch on to that baby. Bears repeating. And repeating. And repeating some more.
Mark,
Thanks for the comment, the ripple effect of GOED/EB-5 and the beef plant is tremendous, there are likely untold numbers of people that were made promises and then stiffed.
As Mr. Tristan points out in his blog, economic development isn't just about business: retail, manufacturing and service are the obvious ones. Rapid City has a substantial number of healthcare providers, supplier, clinics, etc. It is a vital part of our community's economic system. Most of money generated here stays here.
Mr. Tristan pointed out that the number of times a dollar is turned over, the better for the community the better. That is what we call true economic development.
Such is the case with Medicaid Expansion. it is not just a good investment for our communities it is good for the state and benefits those in need of health insurance.
This is no brainer, the state rejecting sound economic development funding on the basis of a cruel ideology and their lack math skills.
The governor and his GOED/EB-5 team are likely planning another economic development disaster somewhere in South Dakota when they could be working on making some real money for our state.
Temba, at rest.
Whoa Nellie, Daugaard found the time to underwrite 650 million for a stadium in our poor state, but not 1.5 million for the workers who will work in that sweat shop. That is republican leadership and more hypocrisy for all to see. So the working poor that will man the booths, clean the joint up and do the upkeep, if you get a cold or the flu, please cough on the rich dude in the high dollar seats. Paybacks are brutal.
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/daugaard-signs-bills-for-stadium-greenhouse/article_ead243fc-1936-5ce9-acf5-b86d73088214.html
Our royalty here in South Dakota bequeaths monies only to those who have it. The poor and working poor can pound sand.
Sports idiocy subsidized by state government idiots.
Cory - Your inconsistency is showing. You bitch and moan about SD being a net recipient of federal funds, balancing our budget with taxes we don't pay, but now you post that receipt of even more federal funds is acceptable. You shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
One could think that expanding Medicare/Medicaid solely for the purpose of helping the uninsured and needy,would be reason enough for so-called christians. Any economic benefits should be icing on the cake to seal the deal. But then,one would be wrong. Wingnuts have shown a surprising stubborn streak that allows them to make the least among us suffer while they play one-upsmanship with the Feds.
Erwin, your inattention is showing. I don't "bitch and moan" (oh, the derogation!) about South Dakota receiving federal funds—as a believer in robust government working to smooth out inequality, I support working together as a nation to make sure all citizens enjoy equal access to good health care, transportation, education, etc. I regularly report on South Dakota's heavy reliance on federal funds to remind Republicans how inconsistent they are. I also seek to tamp down all the cheap "Government is bad" rhetoric with examples of how government is beneficial and downright essential to South Dakota.
Nesiba points out the Republicans' inconsistency: they justify accepting big government dollars when tied to military spending that creates jobs around Ellsworth by killing people. They reject a similarly beneficial infusion of federal cash that would boost the economy by caring for people.
It's South Dakota Republicans that want it both ways, campaigning on anti-government rhetoric but keeping South Dakota alive on big government.
... their (virginia republicans) latest fall-back excuse seems to be more of the same: a desperate, trumped-up objection that exposes how weak their substantive case really is.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/va-republicans-need-to-end-their-excuses-for-not-expanding-medicaid/2014/03/26/381d466e-b461-11e3-8020-b2d790b3c9e1_story.html?hpid=z3
Read more on this topic:
The Post’s View: Virginia Republicans’ stand against Medicaid funding defies the facts
The Post’s View: Virginia should climb on board Medicaid expansion
The Post’s View: Medicaid expansion is right for Virginia
Jim Corcoran: Medicaid expansion is good for Va. business
If I may Erwin Mack, one is hypocrisy and the other is saving lives. On one hand, you have republican governor crowing about a "balanced budget", but he got it with charity monies from the federal government not through any kind of fiscal leadership. The other would be for saving the lives of about 2 dozen of our fellow South Dakotans. Yep Erwin Mack, what is the value of an actual, breathing, human life? Dozens of those who worked their lives for the benefit of all and cannot get any kind of health coverage other than a band aid at an emergency room, will indeed die unnecessarily. These people are actually dying and the hateful republican dynasty is killing them. They will die within the year because of this malfeasance. When they go to the Amen corner this Sunday to lie about how great they are, they should practice what they perceive Jesus would have done, but they will not. They just go to the church because they have to for political reasons so their neighbors see them as pious.
$650 MILLION FOR A SPORTS STADIUM IN SOUTH DAKOTA!?!?!?!
Yes indeed, I shouted every word of that. A poor state like SD is putting $650 million into a stadium!?! It's so absurd, so bizarre. Pro stadiums are built for that kind of money. Big buck universities like Ohio State and Stanford spend like that.
MN is building a $1 billion football stadium and that barely crept through the legislature because of the outrageous cost, while so many other needs are unmet. And MN is a relatively wealthy state.
What is wrong with those people?! Grrrrrrrrr!
Big time sports programs are a way for public U.s to build political and popular support, Deb. Here's a pretty good piece on it from NYT a couple of years ago. Interesting that the author notes that major programs are disproportionately located located in conservative states, where public support for Universities might not be as strong as in more liberal state (think Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, Kansas, Oklahoma--you get the picture). Net revenues to the programs themselves generally make money, but the big payoff comes from alumni contributions and general taxpayer support for a program that can galvanize a whole state. I think SDSU is following a tried and true model that will take it and the whole USD system to another level. I support it. conomix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/do-big-time-sports-mean-big-time-support-for-universities/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
I thought that was really a joke at first Deb, it sounds like one -South Dakota's 650 million dollar Sports Stadium! What on earth?! And I thought the Vikings stadium was too much money (especially with the dorky ship look they picked for it). Holy Moly! They do say that college sports teams are where the money is. It's just funny b/c it's not much less than the Vikings. Expect the price of tickets to go up mightily. I know I won't expect to see my beloved Vikings play in their new ship very often since $200/ticket is out of my price range.
The Rapid City Journal article about a $650 million stadium at SDSU is wrong. The bill signed by the Governor calls for $65 million to be spent on a new stadium. Still a great plenty.
http://legis.sd.gov/Legislative_Session/Bills/Bill.aspx?File=SB15ENR.htm&Session=2014
So, it is only 65 MILLION, what a bargain. For a minute there, I thought they were talking about real money. 65 MILLION is chump change in South Dakota, we can get that from the Chinese any day of the week.
Whew, that number sounds much more like it. I was really beginning to wonder if that T Denny Sanford was going to make a big donation for SD college sports.
Other states are considering following the lead of New Hampshire, where the state Senate voted, with Republican support, for a modified expansion.
At the same time, progressives should back MoveOn’s brilliant billboard campaign parodying the tourism slogans of not just Louisiana but also Texas, Florida, Nebraska, Virginia and Wisconsin — which are all blocking the Medicaid expansion.
The campaign might consider going to South Dakota, Alaska, Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi and Maine, which have Republican governors, contested Senate races and huge numbers of residents who are being denied access to health care. They need to know who is at fault.
High-profile Democrats running for federal office this cycle should be similarly bold. Voters, especially low-income voters who are most hurt by the GOP’s cruel stance on health care, need to understand just what’s at stake. It’s time for Democrats to run on health-care reform, not away from it — and Medicaid expansion is a worthy place to start.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/katrina-vanden-heuvel-voters-should-know-who-is-holding-up-their-health-care/2014/03/25/fd649356-b39d-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html
$65 million. Okay, I'll quit shouting now. That is a lot of money, but now I can buy the good investment part John. It makes sense.
So why is the 65 Million an appropriate investment stimulus to the economy for goofing off and 1 Million in investment stimulus for hundreds of millions of income to the state for the health and well being of working people so dangerous in the minds of South Dakota's legislators? Maybe the legislators and not so good at math. Maybe what they should do is invest some money in learning how to use the Abacus to impress their interesting friends in the EB-5 market so they would finance the million. Talk about a great investment that would produce jobs, this is it.
Jerry,
It is called misplaced and irresponsible priorities.
Bricks and mortar vs health care