As Bearcreekbat rightly reminds us, we should not attack politicians for expanding public assistance, at least not when that public assistance promotes the general welfare rather than corporate cronies.
That's why we should cheer four Republican-controlled states that are likely to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act in the next six months.
Why is our equally conservative neighbor moving toward Medicaid expansion? Money:
The business case for expanding Medicaid seems to be making the biggest headway in Wyoming, [State Senator Chris] Rothfuss and Wyoming Hospital Association president Dan Perdue told TPM. The federal government covers 100 percent of Medicaid expansion's costs through 2016 and never less than 90 percent after that.
So in states that haven't expanded, their federal tax dollars are paying for expansion in other states while their hospitals are left caring for the uninsured left uncovered because of the state's decision not to expand. That's more than 17,000 people in Wyoming. Another Republican governor, Arizona's Jan Brewer, used that fact to sway her state's GOP lawmakers to accept Medicaid expansion.
There is now a growing body of evidence about how refusing to expand Medicaid hurts hospitals financially. Fitch Ratings cited missing Medicaid money in recent credit rating downgrades for some hospitals in non-expansion states. Meanwhile, hospitals in expansion states have reported drops in uninsured patients and the corresponding increase in paying customers, a sure benefit to their bottom line [Dylan Scott, "Why Even Uber-Conservative States Are Now Bending on Obamacare," Talking Points Memo, 2014.09.01].
Hospitals were among the key stakeholders that helped to get Obamacare passed in the first place. But they've been hung out to dry in states that declined to expand Medicaid.
Money is the hammer that will get South Dakota's 2015 Legislature to do the right thing and expand Medicaid. Sending them a Democratic governor with some fiscal and moral sense to sign expansion into law would help.
The thing about compassionate conservatism is sooner or later they run out of someone else's money at which point they revert to being mean to the poor,the elderly,the downtrodden.
hmmm two businessmen, one a young engineer/consultant that is a state senator, the other the president of the Wyoming hospital association are sounding the alarm to Governor Matt Mead along with the majority republican legislature that they are loosing money. This is businessmen speak for lets change direction. Clearly this makes sense to them as they have some 17,000 citizens that this would apply to. As businessmen, they understand that they pay for everything at present for all charges these 17,000 folks will make. It is clear that these businessmen understand that 100% payment for right now and then 90% payment at the worse case scenario in the future, is what they would be receiving and what they would have to pay out. 10% in the future, what businessman would not grab a hold of a known expenditure that would never exceed 10% of the costs that he is now paying 100% money on?
South Dakota businessmen and women need to forget what political party they are in for a chance to bring closure to an expense that is eating up the budget. They need to forge some kind of organization that either bypasses the Chamber of Commerce or includes them, to get the message to legislators that they are causing undo pain to the pocketbooks of taxpayers as well as mainstreet. It would be nice if the hospital associations here along with the Chamber of Commerce would actually work together to get this done. Business is business after all.
Too bad those "businessmen" can't keep up with the thinking of millions of ordinary Americans who have been doing this math for a long time. Geez, are those guys in need of some remedial arithmetic?
Even businessmen have to deal with knotheads somewhere along the line and this is one of those times. The math speaks for itself, but the will to come up with the solution to the problem is what that evades. The only solution is for the powers that write the checks to begin the systematic approach to cutting them off in order to get them back to school and find the solution. It ain't rocket science that is for sure.
No worries. Once the elections are over and done, they'll do the right thing for the wrong reasons. The electorate will certainly forgive and forget long before the next election cycle anyway. I have little doubt our fair state will join in the Medicare expansion legion come January. Meanwhile, it's all just so much posturing for the base.
I thought that last year crossgrain, but alas, it was not to be. So in order to make your prediction correct, Daugaard has got to go man, the dude has got to go.
crossgrain, you may be giving Dipshit Dennis more credit than he deserves, I'm not convinced he's smart enough to add 2 and 2 together and get the same answer twice in a row.
Cory, you humble me! There seem to be two reasons for expanding Medicaid, and the interests these reasons support are diametrically opposed but, as in a dialectic, they can lead to a harmonious result.
Reason 1 - we care about our fellow human beings and want them to have decent health care available at public expense.
Reason 2 - we want to make lots of money and if it comes from the public and we can add it to our personal fortunes, all the better.
Expanding Medicaid accomplishes both these diametrically opposed goals. We help those in need and the Medicaid money gets spent over and over again in our state and eventually is collected and saved by those who provide services and own for profit businesses.
Sometimes a good result is worth plugging our noses and ignoring motivations we might disagree with.
bcb- I think you missed an important reason for expanding Medicaid and that would be political expedience-wetting your finger and holding it up to see which way the political winds blow.
The business case for expanding Medicaid has not changed since its inception,other than states that have procrastinated have lost one year of 100% federal funding and left their citizens w/o care for at least a year.
mike, that is an interesting observation, although there may be a typo in your comment. The political winds seem to be the only honest justification that our state leaders have relied upon to deny the expansion, rather than expand, even when common sense tells them that the denial was against the financial interests of every single state resident.
And yes, SD lost 100% of funding for 2014. At least some of SD tax dollars were used to fund the Medicaid expansion in other states, which helped a whole lot of people. I suppose helping people in other states is a worthwhile goal, even if it means turning our backs of SD residents. I wonder if the folks we elect in 2014 will be so altruistic toward our neighbors, including those in Wyoming, in 2015?
bcb-I'm guessing if the Senate changes hands and the House stays in wingnut control altruism will be left by the wayside,especially on the ACA.