States AGs revolt as House and Senate Bills expand Medicaid

Expect more states to join the 13 AGs who threatened to sue if either health bill is enacted by Congress claiming certain Senators and Representatives were given sweetheart deals to get them passed.

Forty-three states are facing financial deficits given the down turn in the economy. According to a CNN report December 10, "As states attempt to get their budgets in line for the new fiscal year, ...budget constraints are causing 25 states to reduce services to their residences. So far 17 states have already made cuts or are considering cuts to programs that affect low-income children's and family's access to health insurance and health care services." In the last House vote of 2009, it passed the "Jobs for Main Street Act" by a 217-212 vote along party lines, which provided states with some funding mostly for current operations, including $53 Billion for extending benefits/health insurance subsidies for the unemployed and $23 Billion for Medicaid.

Given that Medicaid is a program jointly funded by federal and state governments and administered by the states, it is easy to see why states are financially unable to expand benefits programs. It seems Congress is out of touch with the reality of the severity of the economic crisis and continuing politics as usual, in these are anything but usual times. Unlike the federal government states cannot just print money. Despite claims to the contrary by our politicians, neither bill seriously does anything to bend the proverbial cost curve downward. However, as mentioned before in this blog, both do an extensive amount of cost-shifting.

No one wants to see anyone without healthcare, but it's time we take the politics and politicians out of it. The reason why became clear in talking with a friend who is an Indiana State Representative. He said, "So much of what we do with regard to legistlation is in response to some horrific hardship case we hear about. We feel compelled to right a wrong, and so we pass legistlation. But we don't take the time to look circumspectly at the issue to understand the potential unintended
consequences of what we pass."

It seems Congress is using the same rationale my friend described. Poorly, reasoned laws are worse than none at all. Let's be financially responsible and fair to all our citizens. Perhaps the States can succeed in getting Congress to appreciate we need to be writing good bills rather than paying people off to pass any bill.

HR 3962: Extension of Coverage vs. States Rights

HR 3962, Sec. 105 allows parents to keep their adult children under 27 years of age, who may or may not be in school or working, and are not enrolled in a health plan, enrolled under their parent's health plan. [Of course, the parent and the parent’s employer will pay the added premium for keeping the additional family member on the plan.] At present, state laws have varying ages and conditions under which children may be kept on their parent’s plan. This bill, however, nationalizes those requirements. It is interesting that Congress can nationalize administrative rules previously under the prerogative of the states to increase insurance coverage for Americans; however, Congress is unwilling to use the same logic to open up competition with a national health insurance market, a move that would significantly lower rates in many markets. If the idea is to get more people covered, wouldn’t making cheaper insurance coverage available to more people, more places be a good start?