Contact
ObamaCare upheld: NM must get busy
Dede Feldman
Do we really contemplate thumbing our nose at the federal funds when the people of New Mexico are in such great need? I hope not.
June 28 was a great day for the nation, and New Mexico in particular. The Supreme Court decision was a clear victory for the Affordable Care Act. Both the mandate and the Medicaid expansion were upheld, and there can be no doubt that ObamaCare is the law of the land.
Also upheld is the principle that yes, Congress can act when there is a national crisis – like the one we have with health-care costs, lack of access and affordable insurance.
It is a victory for people who are sick with cancer, MS, heart disease, asthma and other chronic conditions. They can rest easier knowing that insurance companies cannot turn them down, jack up their rates due to an illness they are unlucky enough to have.
It is a victory for consumers now subject to abusive insurance practices that limit lifetime and annual benefits or rescind their policies altogether when they dare to get sick… and for consumers who were overcharged by their insurance companies now due for a refund of the profits that were previously going to CEO salaries or administrative expenses.
It is a victory for prevention, for primary care, for reforming the delivery of medical care to increase quality and bend the cost curve.
It is a victory for students, like the 24,000 in New Mexico who have already signed up to stay on their parents’ insurance policies because it is cheaper.
It is a victory for women who will no longer be charged more for the same service that men receive, or not covered at all when it comes to “female problems.”
It is a victory for seniors who will continue to save an average of $600 a year on their prescriptions, and enjoy fewer co-pays and get free preventive screenings.
Time to work together
But we don’t have time to rest on this victory. It is now time for New Mexico – the Legislature and the governor – to work together to implement the law. With the second-largest percentage of uninsured people in the country, we have so much to gain. Foremost is better health for New Mexicans, and a reduction of the disparities between those who have insurance and those who don’t, who just happen to be a higher proportion of Hispanics, Native Americans and African Americans.
A Medicaid expansion, handsomely financed by the federal government, could cover 150,000 more New Mexicans as early as 2014. The increased services could create as many as 40,000 new jobs and $888,000 millions in tax revenue to stimulate our state economy, according to one state economist.
Rather than re-fighting old political battles, I’m encouraged that the Martinez administration is finally moving forward with the Health Insurance Exchange, and restructuring the Medicaid program. The revamped program will fit in nicely with an expansion, which, although financed 90 percent by the federal government, will necessitate some state funds.
Just how much it will cost is a matter of dispute. At a recent Health and Human Services Committee hearing the administration alleged that it would cost $500 million. An independent study, however, conducted by the Hilltop Institute, says it will cost $40 million when savings from other programs are accounted for.
Is it worth it? During the time I’ve served in the Legislature, one of the only things about health care that there seemed to be consensus on was this: The state must maximize its Medicaid match to provide for its citizens. I am confident this consensus exists in the medical community, among insurers, providers and advocates.
Do we really contemplate thumbing our nose at the federal funds when the people of New Mexico are in such great need? I hope not.
Senator Dede Feldman has represented District 13 since 1997 and is retiring at the end of the year.
15 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m skeptical of the CBO’s numbers and predictions, but my main point was that the WaPo article used them as a source. Even if they are a quasi-credible source because they have to rely on (potentially) bad data input, they are more credible than that particular Heritage article, whose source was, as far as I could tell, the authors alone.
And in addition arti, if you believe the CBO numbers and projections are the Holy Grail of all data, you should read this:
http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/21/congress-used-cbo-to-get-the-a
arti, as has been said in so many places about CBO numbers, they can only use what is given to them by the bill’s authors as the assumptions for their financial models. That includes growth rates, inflation, taxes, etc., etc. So any bill’s authors write the numbers, not CBO. And guess who wrote ObamaCare? Was it the CBO? Was it a bipartisan commission? As I said, partisan numbers give the expected, partisan results.
So, can advocates answer why if Obamacare is so great, the vast majority of exemptions occur in the district of its godmother, Pelosi?
This is cronyism at its worst – government makes laws and provides exceptions to the good ole girl network.
Can’t liberals seem to understand that increasing regulation means increased corruption, decreased efficiency, and so, punishment of those playing by the rules?
made up partisan numbers
The Congressional Budget Office is partisan? Since they’re one of the sources that the WaPo uses. Heritage uses…well, they don’t cite anything, but they do state
“According to media reports, experts believe”
So I’m sure they’re not using made-up partisan numbers at all.
In reply to erickhawkes,
The individual mandate has exceptions for religious, conscience, and economic hardship reasons. The government is not going to buy insurance for someone and make them pay for it, and it is not going to prosecute someone who does not buy health insurance.
The individual mandate includes a penalty that is implemented in the form of a tax. It’s a new tax, not a massive tax hike. It is not a general tax. It applies only to the uninsured who wish to remain uninsured and do not qualify for any of the exemptions.
It is a tax on the people who are covered by the emergency room mandate, but have no insurance.
There are no provisions for prosecution included in the “mandate”.
Taxing junk food, like alcohol and cigarette,s would be a good way to pay for the trouble it causes.
The private health insurance system, and the larger health care industry, is failing to provide for the general Welfare of the United States by double-digit percentages. It is not the role of private businesses to provide for that general Welfare, which is why predatory market-based policies providing health care are nothing more than a fraud.
State government would be stupid not to accept the funding for expansion of health care to the citizens, the majority which cannot afford health insurance either because of unemployment or poverty wages. Our hospitals and clinics require some payment for services to stay afloat. Medicaid for more people should lower the cost of health insurance for everyone else as those that can afford it are no longer carrying the burden of those not covered. Medicaid for more citizens would also lower healthcare costs by allowing people to get preventive care and interventionist care before health problems spiral out of control and cost magnitudes more to treat.
The funding would help keep and even expand the state’s medical infrastructure providing a much needed economic stimulus.
Medicaid can help citizens avoid bankruptcy and wealth stripping of those that can least afford what little security they provide to loved ones.
Well, obviously if EW-aif is going to quote the WashPost and their opinions of ObamaCare based on Obama’s own financial projections (read fallacies and made up partisan numbers), then another end of the spectrum from the left should also be presented for balance and fairness.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/02/the-obama-health-care-budget-hopeful-savings-and-costly-change
Of course the reality will be neither of these partisan extremes, but we just have to pass it to see what is in it and what happens, right?
Analysis of The Affordable Care LAW (Yay!) on the American pocketbook by the Washington Post Factchecker:
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/obamacare-tax-hikes-vs-tax-breaks-which-is-greater/2012/07/06/gJQAx6AyPW_blog.html?hpid=z3 for the complete analysis.
Summary:
“The CBO estimated that the government will provide $630 billion in tax credits and subsidies for insurance within the next 11 years, compared to just $54 billion in penalties for uninsured individuals over the same period. (See Table 2 from the penalties link.)
As you can see, credits and subsidies represent nearly 12 times the amount of “tax” through the penalty.
For good measure, we compared all the tax hikes with the estimated tax credits and subsidies, using a combination of the CBO reports and a table from the Joint Committee on Taxation that breaks down the health law’s revenue hikes. Here’s what that looks like over a seven-year span:
Credits and subsidies: $343 billion
New revenue: $459 billion (including $30 billion in penalties)
(Note: These totals reflect only 2012 through 2019, since those were the only common years between the CBO and JCT tables.)
In this case, the tax hikes outweigh credits and subsidies. But again, Lew mentioned “middle-class people,” whom most of the tax increases won’t directly affect.
Pinocchio Test
It’s not our business to pass judgment on the health-care law. But we have reviewed the numbers for tax hikes versus tax breaks for the middle class, and we found nothing to dispute [Jack] Lew’s statements.
The health law, if it works as the nonpartisan government analysts expect, will provide more tax relief than tax burden for middle-income Americans. The White House chief of staff earns a rare Geppetto Checkmark for his remarks on “This Week.”
Skeptic, using that logic, if the government wants to maximize its revenue under Obamacare, it would want to maximize the number of healthy, young, and wealthy people. Therefore, it must want America to be healthier, younger, and wealthier.
Sounds win-win-win to me.
So, these things happen, but in a very real way, Obamacare
penalizes the healthy and rewards the sick,
penalizes the young and rewards the elderly ( by capping the ratio of premiums and by piling on debt for future generations )
and of course, penalizes the wealthy and rewards the poor.
Does government really want a populace that is sick, old and poor?
While I’ve never questioned her sincerity in standing up for her beliefs as a state senator, I have always opposed Sen. Feldman’s attempts to tax junk food. On many occasions she would justify this stance by polling her constitutents who consistently backed her up on this. No surprises there since she was always re-elected within her district…but, alas, a senate district does not a state wide level of support make.
In the final analysis, her commentary just affirms her position as one of many nationwide shills of the Obama administration on this topic.
“Identification and Proof of (Health) Insurance, please.”
https://sites.google.com/site/erikhawkes/Home/identification-and-proof-of-health-insurance
Most people unemployed do not have dental insurance, and it is common to skip a month or two of auto insurance when you simply do not have the money. Now the State is going to MANDATE that EVERY individual carries health insurance or pay a penalty?! With auto insurance, the arguement is that driving is a priveledge, not a right. Does that mean that your LIFE is now a priveledge, not a right? Whatever happened to the right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness? Just how close are we to the Mark of the Beast?
How PPPs Really Workhttps://sites.google.com/site/erikhawkes/Home/how-ppps-really-work
The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
No reason for New Mexico to not go along, poltically or otherwise.
The Federal money will bring jobs to New Mexico, and they will be jobs for caregivers, like nurses, doctors, and physician assistants. Jobs for Americans to help Americans, not jobs for Americans to develop more weapons of mass destruction.
Sure, why not, you can’t argue with the logic that you should take even more “free” money from the feds for our little banana republic here, which already soaks up much more fed money than it pays. After all, if we don’t have to pay for it, what’s not to like? Who cares about the bill coming due someday for our country and society as a whole, our parochial self interest trumps all that, who cares about “shared responsibility”, to each according to his need, from each according to their abilities (they are mostly out of state anyway).