Gary Silverman
Columnist
It’s distressing to read political spins about how the recent federal budget bill will somehow cut billions from health care costs without reducing health care. It defies logic. Wonderful would be if politicians would simply stand by their beliefs and clearly identify winners and losers – in this case a preference to fund border security and tax cuts to high earners (among other winners) rather than balance the budget, decrease our national debt, and provide health care (among other losers.)
Folks who depend on Medicaid and Medicare are losers with this new budget. This means that many people will be without any healthcare coverage – which also means that they will be without healthcare. Unless the state or the local government provides more health care services, people will simply not be able to get help when sick or injured. Our local and state providers are going to be facing major challenges in keeping our population healthy.
Those folks needing (and eligible for) Medicaid, and the responsible health agencies, will face a nightmare responding to greatly increased eligibility requirements. Anyone who has ever applied for Medicaid will have experienced the complicated system already in place to prove and maintain eligibility. But – this bill requires this bureaucracy to be expanded! This bill substantially increases the workload without providing more resources. No one likes expanding bureaucracy in government, but this bill does just that.
Although no one knows exactly, estimates range between 12 and 17 million people losing health coverage because of this bill. This includes women, children and even hard-working men working at minimum wage jobs who are legally here but don’t yet have green cards or citizenship. For those getting health insurance through the Affordable Care Act, they can expect a large rate increase plus a sharp drop in federal subsidy. Even Medicare recipients are expected to be hurt as the bill is expected to increase health care costs and decrease service in rural parts of the country. Many of the cuts to this bill will not take effect until just after the 2026 midterm elections – a clear sign that these cuts will be widely unpopular. Why else would they be deferred for a year except to help the incumbents who voted for the bill?
Keep in mind that this bill demands an increase in government oversight – just the opposite of decreasing the role of government in our lives. Surely there will be a few people who lose coverage because they refuse to work even though they could easily find jobs (which makes them undeserving of health care?). Many more are expected to lose coverage simply because it is too difficult to prove eligibility! Will the state and local governments be stepping in to help the people here in Virginia, and in our neighborhoods, who need health care? Will we be paying for this in increased local and state taxes? The choices left to us in responding to this new federal bureaucratic approach to rationing health care are not good. But perhaps it is worth it to those folks who are fearful of immigration or who believe that giving tax breaks to the rich helps the economy more than giving breaks to the working person. That was a real choice.
