How does a practical Republican react to an underperforming state economy and Governor Dennis Daugaard's blasé budget proposal? John Tsitrian says drop the political posturing, prioritize practical economics, and expand Medicaid:
Given Daugaard's cautiously reactive tone when discussing the upcoming budget, I wondered why our Governor couldn't be a bit more pro-active in his approach to energizing the economy. Daugaard is either overlooking or ignoring an obvious boost to our near-static growth rates--Medicaid expansion.
...[C]onsider the total outlays by SD through 2022 vs. the revenues from the federal government: SD pays out $157 million and gets back $2.1 billion, yes billion with a "b." Are we as a state too stupid to grasp what a good deal this is? [John Tsitrian, "With SD's Economy Drifting into the Doldrums, Expanding medicaid Makes More Sense than Ever," The Constant Commoner, 2014.12.11]
Even if you think the Affordable Care Act won't last, it's time to get out the Mickelson bucket and catch some of that federal money while it's raining.
A Republican who adheres to a Biblical Christian worldview would not promote coveting in order to be practical. Medicaid expansion is a promotion of coveting.
LOL --- it seems to me that Christians would have enough compassion to want to help reduce the suffering.
Since there are not enough individuals who are able or willing to assist people with low income to receive health care, who will step up to the plate?
JeniW, Jesus Christ did not say forget about taking care of poor, instead tell Caesar to take away from the rich and have Caesar give to the poor. Jesus Christ did not promote a democracy where the poor are encouraged to covet by voting for those who will make Caesar tax their rich neighbor and give it to us.
Fair enough Steve, so what you propose to help people who have low income to receive health care?
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/state/chamber-of-commerce-supports-gov-bullock-s-medicaid-expansion-plan/article_2abd7bd6-81b8-11e4-855a-6b3b6e20813b.html
I just signed up for Obamacare in New Mexico.
During the government shut-down which closed down Mt. Rushmore complex, Gov. Daugaard provided proof that there was enough financial support in SD to re-open it without federal dollars.
Since he is unwilling to accept federal dollars to expand Medicaid, does that mean he should be unwilling to accept federal funding to maintain the Mt. Rushmore complex, and to maintain the art work?
Obamacare in Mitchell is far cheaper than in New Mexico.
Here's a major chink in the anti-expansion armor, Alabama-wise: http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/southunionstreet/2014/12/11/robert-bentley-suggests-opening-for-medicaid-expansion/20252789/
Note in my linked story that Bentley's remark came after a "grim budget presentation."
Helping people I'd the Christian thing to do
John T. is pretty much always on the mark regarding numbers and he is correct this time as well. He also brings about a perfect argument for Medicaid Expansion, but he then he spoils it all with a question. It is clear that we are, in fact, that stupid. "Are we as a state too stupid to grasp what a good deal this is?"
Now you get the idea on why the EB-5 worked so good here and why all the rest of the corruption is successful as well. A majority of us here are just smart enough to pull our britches up after a big job to keep from falling down, and that is all you can expect. Take a look at who we elected and doubt me...squirrel
I knew I was posing a tough, in-our-faces question, jerry. Sometimes we just gotta look at ourselves in a mirror. I know where you're coming from, but I ain't givin' up on us yet.
I know, sometimes I can get a little edgy and snarky, but history has given me plenty of ammo here in our great state. I always know we can do better, but we have forces that are just to ideologically pure to turn around, that makes it difficult. Keep the drumbeat going, we need that rhythm to make the change.
John T - Thank you for your efforts on the Medicaid expansion issue! While there might be more than one incentive to adopting the expansion, such as to help the poor, or to obtain financial benefits for the state, it takes efforts like yours to get some people to recognize that both interests can be met if we can overcome the partisan attitudes.
Steve bears false witness everytime he slanders motives of those seeking fairness as if they are only coveting the ill-gotten gains of the very richest.
Jesus didn't try to get the government or the rich to pay for healing people. He just healed them. Now, Steve, unless you're capable of healing people the way Jesus did, we have to find a way to get people health care.Jesus said give unto Caeser what is Caesar's and give unto God what is God's because he understood that government has responsibilities tof the citizens and that it takes money to meet those responsibilities. He most certainly did not hate the poor or blame them for being poor!
perhaps our lowest point in the history of the state, post- 1890s, yet there are so many low low points in our past
Appreciate it, bcb. Medicaid expansion is one issue where self-interest and altruism can mesh.
On self-interest, as Senator Al Franken likes to say, "We all do better when we all do better."
We would not be having this problem if 8 cent aspirin were not $8 each in the hospital. $75 for a 2 quart plastic pitcher. If Community Health did MRI's for $22 as they are in India. If a knee replacement was $4,000 as in Thailand, instead of the $45,000 average cost in the US.
None of us would go to the store and pay $800 for a bottle of aspirin, but the insurance company, owned by the hospital does. None of us would prescribe an $8 aspirin, but the doctors who own the hospitals do. The Insured (taxpayer funded as neither they nor their employers pay for their insurance) only pay the 8 cents out of pocket, so they don't carp. The Government is on board with this situation as the Expansion puts a lien on on the poors' names at $7,000 per year. If We, the Government, were not allowing the gouging, if We were not enforcing monopolies in the industry, the working poor would not need insurance.
"You're probably wondering, how does this affect me, Al Frankin?" (SNL)
Daugaard does not want to know the truth; he can't handle the truth (Few Good Men). South Dakota citizens with serious health conditions do NOT have access to adequate health care, and die unnecessarily and tragically and too young. Lacking Medicaid, the system has unbreachable gaps in coverage for disabled individuals, from IHS Contract Care (not an entitlement) to disability-Medicare. I was going to give examples, but there are too many.
There are many other red states in the country in this same boat, at least we can take comfort in knowing there are many others just as stupid as we are.
Avera and Sanford will straighten out Daugaard. I believe now that the election is over he'll get on board.