Here’s what they have to say when they break down the local impact.
Texas has an extraordinary opportunity to expand health care coverage that would benefit up to 2 million of its citizens. The federal government would pay about $100 billion toward this expansion over 10 years, with the state responsible for only about $15 billion under a moderate enrollment scenario.
Extending Medicaid to low-income adults certainly would benefit the newly eligible. It also would benefit the wider economy and reduce demands on local indigent health programs and hospital charity care.
The amount of state match necessary to extend Medicaid to low-income adults would equal a small fraction of current local government and hospital spending on low-income health care. What’s more, covering low-income adults will result in new local revenue because it will generate good-paying jobs and commerce. So local governments will SAVE on health costs at the same time they are GAINING new sales and property taxes without raising tax rates.
At the same time, more people in every area of Texas would have health insurance, doctors and other health workers would be more fairly compensated for treating low-income folks, and the state could stop spending so much on piecemeal programs that only treat some health problems. People with health insurance will live longer and be healthier–and the many low-income adults in Texas who are parents will be able to take better care of their kids, too.
It’s not hard to see from that how insuring so many who are currently uninsured will have an extremely positive impact at the local level. A healthier population, less emergency room visits, and less expenditure on the uninsured. Just another reason why this makes sense and will lower costs that are paid by local property tax payers.
Here are the numbers:
By County – Williamson.
By House Districts in Williamson County – HD-20, HD-52, and HD-136.
By Senate District – SD-5.
Also Progress Texas is keeping track of local governments that are coming out in favor of Medicaid expansion, many large county governments are on board.
It would likely be a great help to Williamson County, but I doubt our elected officials could see past ideology and do what’s best for the county. I would be very happy if they proved me wrong.
Two key Republicans legislators — both of them doctors — say they’re sticking with Gov. Rick Perry’s position that Texas will reject the Medicaid expansion provision of federal health reform, despite a rising tide of Republican governors who are embracing it.
During a Texas Tribune Triblive conversation on Wednesday, Rep. John Zerwas, R-Simonton, and Sen. Charles Schwertner, R-Georgetown, both spoke against expanding Medicaid, which they called a “broken system.” But they left the door open to working with the Obama administration if it provides more flexibility to let Texas operate the program as it sees fit.
There are many falsehoods that the wing nuts spout about Medicaid. They believe their oft spouted mythology government is reality, but it’s not. The fact is Medicaid is not broken, and is much, much more efficient then private insurance. Here’s one of the Ten Myths About Medicaid.
* Myth 9—The Medicaid program is inefficient.
* FACT: Medicaid compares favorably to other parts of the American health system when measuring administrative efficiency and per enrollee costs.
Compared to private health programs, Medicaid has lower administrative costs per claims paid when compared to private sector plans. Medicaid per capita growth has been consistently about half the rate of growth in private insurance premiums. Both of these factors show that despite program growth, Medicaid is an efficient program.
Steven Brill has written a must-read article for this week’s Time magazine about health care costs and why we really do have to be concerned about them. Following on that, he made an appearance on the round table segment of This Week to discuss those costs and why he’s sounding the alarm.
Anyone who has spent even a day in the hospital knows what the problem is. When one over-the-counter pain reliever administered in the hospital costs as much as an entire bottle at the pharmacy, there’s a very, very big problem.
Brill correctly points out that Medicare is an efficient program that Congress has managed to hog-tie into some ridiculous costly measures:
And it actually that bears on the conversation we’re having, because a chunk of that money is paid by Medicare. Medicare is I point out in the article is very efficient at most things. It buys health care really efficiently, which is a great irony, because it’s supposed to be the big government of bureaucracy.
Where Medicare is not efficient is where Congress, because of lobbyists have handcuffed Medicare. Medicare can’t negotiate what it pays for any kind of drugs. It can’t negotiate what it pays for wheelchairs, diabetes testing equipment. And if Congress took those handcuffs off of Medicare, you could get about half of the spending cuts that we’re sitting around here talking about.
Yes, this. Of course, that assumes anyone in Congress is brave enough to stand up to the mighty PhRMA lobby, which seems to have as deep a lock on Washington as the gun lobby. Brill also makes the compelling argument for lowering the Medicare eligibility age, which I have argued over and over again here at C&L. The single biggest cost-saver for Medicare would be to drop the eligibility age, let people buy in until they actually reach retirement age, and then they would drop to the levels under the Social Security law.
The problem with Medicaid for Perry and the wing nuts,like Schwertner and Zerwas, is that it’s a government run, not for profit system, that works well. And that’s an affront to everything they believe. They would much rather the federal government give them a chunk of money they could then give the the for profit system, which funds their campaigns. But we all know how that would turn out.
Battleground Texas launches today. They have qualified staff, and and want to start playing at the local level and build up. Which is the right strategy.
Here’s an interview with Jeremy Byrd who’s is running the effort:
Former Obama campaign operatives are relocating in Texas as part of a group that plans to use the tools of Barack Obama’s reelection nationally to make Texas a competitive state in future presidential races. Texas is a prime piece of electoral property with 38 electoral votes. The state has been solidly Republican for 20 years. But a growing Hispanic population should help Democrats. Organizers of “Battleground Texas” say they’ll focus on identifying voters, getting them registered and turning them out to vote on Election Day. We wrote about the “Battleground Texas” in January.
What’s new is an announcement today that Jenn Brown, the Obama campaign field director in Ohio, will be executive director. And Christina Gomez, a former digital strategist for the Democratic National Committee, will direct high-tech and social media efforts. The on-line plan, so successful in Obama’s national campaign, will be a key part of the group’s strategy. Brown and Gomez will join political consultant and former Obama field director Jeremy Bird in Austin. “We know part of the problem is too few Texans are participating in the democratic process — so we’re bringing some of the best talent and strategies in politics to the Lone Star State to help expand the electorate by registering more voters and by mobilizing Texans.”
They’re saying the right things, in particular that this will be a years long struggle. So check them out and I wish them luck and will help in anyway that I can.
But two Republicans in recent days have taken stands that indicate they’re willing to put the state before politics.
State Rep. Jimmie Don Aycock, the new House chairman of public education, was one of them Monday, as he sat on a stage in Baker Hall, answering questions during a public education symposium hosted by Rice University and the Texas Tribune.
Moderator Evan Smith, the Tribune’s editor-in-chief, tossed out a question about a controversial proposal by state Sen. Kevin Eltife, R-Tyler, to increase the state’s fuel tax for the first time in more than 20 years to fund roads and other needs. Smith, noting how the Republican senator had been dinged by critics for supporting a tax hike, asked Aycock if he’d support the idea.
“I’m going to be brave and say yes,” Aycock responded without hesitation, prompting an audible gasp from some in the standing-room-only crowd.
[...]
The bold comments from Eltife and Aycock are signs that lawmakers are starting to take seriously the state’s grave needs in areas of roads, water and investments in public and higher education, said Dick Lavine, senior fiscal analyst at the nonprofit Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for low-income Texans.
“It’s apparent that people are beginning to face reality,” Lavine told me. “If you want something, you have to pay for it sometimes.”
Still, he was careful to put the developments in perspective: “It’s sad that it has to be described as being ‘brave’ when, really, it’s just looking at the facts and coming to a very reasonable conclusion.”
True. But sometimes, in Texas, mere reasonableness is cause for celebration.
Well the first step to fixing a problem is to admit that there is one. As Paul Burka recently pointed out there’s a different feeling this session, but questions still remain, The State of Taxes.
Still, Perry is a man in search of a legacy, and he may put up a fight for the tax swap, though he was intentionally vague in his State of the State about how lawmakers should enact his suggestion for tax relief. But this should be a spending session, not a tax-relief session (Jim Pitts, the chair of the House Appropriations Committee, has already thrown cold water on Perry’s idea). The atmosphere in the Capitol is guardedly optimistic; there is a sense among members, at least those who have endured a string of dreary sessions, that they finally have a window to address some long-neglected needs. For one, the state’s fifty-year water plan remains unfunded; for another, the motor fuels tax for the Texas Department of Transportation can no longer keep pace with the demand for more and better roads. No doubt some fierce battles lie ahead over whether state leaders will allow budget writers to spend the state’s money, but the prospects of a surplus of more than $8 billion and up to $12 billion in the Rainy Day Fund provide the opportunity to shore up state services that have been starved in previous budget cycles. The question is, Will the state’s leaders finally take that chance? [Emphasis added]
The problem for our state’s “leaders” is that they’ve been telling us for so long that we have a spending problem, they have no answer when it becomes obvious that we don’t have a spending problem. We need water infrastructure, we need more highways, we need more spending on public and higher education, and health care. And there’s billions in taxpayer money sitting idle that could be used on the needs of our state. But we can’t spend it because we have to save it, and for what exactly no one knows?
The reality is it would be much cheaper to fix these things now instead of years down the road. It’s the pay me now, or pay me later argument. The Economist fleshes it out a little more. And puts the blame on Texas’ archaic way of budgeting, Too much of a good thing.
Then, too, there is the fact that the Texas legislature meets for 140 days every other year. In the 1960s, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 31 states had biennial sessions, but now only four do. The others changed, in part, because annual sessions allow them to respond more quickly to new federal laws or variable economic conditions. The result of holding out is that Texas legislators end up writing a two-year budget that takes effect months after the session ends and is based on projections about how flush consumers will feel almost three years down the road. Little surprise that they err on the side of caution. But an abundance of caution may have undesirable consequences, too.
We have a pressing need to raise taxes and spend money on the things we need. If lead properly most Texans would understand the need. They sit in traffic on a daily basis, they see the issues regarding water, and notice the cost of higher education is through the roof. And with real leadership could come to understand that more spending is needed. But it’s not very likely to happen the way our state is currently being run.
Our current leaders see the interest of business and corporations ahead of everything else. What’s holding Texas back from getting this done is ideology, plain and simple. Our state is being held captive by forces that believe we should never raise taxes and never spend money (except for corporate welfare), no matter the need. And that’s not rational and it’s bad for Texas.
I am, to put it mildly, extremely skeptical of this new effort. And will gladly eat my words in the future if it turns out to be a success. There’s one good sign that I see thus far. It appears that at least the current GOP chair in Texas is taking it seriously. Via Real Clear Politics, Can Democrats Mess With Texas in 2016?
While the knee-jerk reaction among many Republicans would be to dismiss the idea that the state could be competitive in 2016 — just four years after Mitt Romney carried it by 16 points over President Obama — Texas GOP Chairman Steve Munisteri is in no mood to sneer.
In an interview with RCP, Munisteri said that he has long taken seriously the possibility that Texas could become a battleground as early as 2016, particularly if Clinton becomes the Democratic standard-bearer.
“If she’s the nominee, I would say that this is a ‘lean Republican’ state but not a ‘solid Republican’ state,” he said. “I don’t know anyone nationally who’s scoffing at this. The national party leadership is aware and tells me they’re taking it seriously.”
Munisteri said that he has had recent discussions with Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus about the need to prepare for a significant change in the political dynamic here, noting that the need will likely become even more pressing in the next decade. That’s when Texas is expected to see its minority population rise more sharply — as it adds as many as four additional electoral votes to make it an even shinier target for Democrats than it already is.
But Texas Republicans, he said, are up to the challenge.
“It’s not like the Democrats get to come in here and fire all the ammunition and no one fires back at them,” Munisteri said. “With everything aligned perfectly, and we don’t do what we’re supposed to do, sure they could win the state. But I anticipate we’ll do what we’re supposed to do.”
Republican officials in Texas note with evident pride the extent to which the state GOP has done far better in recent years with Latinos — who compose more than 38 percent of the population — than have Republicans nationwide.
[...]
Texas Democrats’ current lack of a stranglehold on the Hispanic vote is part of the reason many of them downplay the notion that they could make the state competitive on the presidential level anytime soon.
“It’s going to be a really long-term project,” Naomi Aberly, a prominent Dallas-based Democratic fundraiser, told RCP. “Making people understand just how big Texas is and what a long time it will take to turn it is part of the conversation. It’s not going to be overnight.”
Aberly is serving as an unofficial adviser to Battleground Texas — a new organization helmed by national Democrats that is slated to launch formally in the coming days, with the ultimate aim of turning Texas into a swing state.
Politico reported last month that the group intends to spend “tens of millions of dollars over several years” in order to eventually put Texas’ 38 electoral votes — the nation’s second largest haul — within reach of a Democratic candidate and thus change the entire electoral calculus for the foreseeable future.
Jeremy Bird, who was Obama’s national field director in the 2012 re-election campaign and is helming the effort here, is making no claims that the statewide dynamic will change immediately. But he seems open to the possibility that Texas can nudge its way onto the swing-state map in 2016, even if that remains a big reach.
“Battleground Texas is a grassroots organization that will make Texas a battleground state by treating it like one,” he said in a statement. “Over the next several years, Battleground Texas will focus on expanding the electorate by registering more voters — and by mobilizing Texans who are already registered voters but who have not been engaged in the democratic process.”
Voter registration efforts in the state’s heavily Democratic bastions — including urban areas like Austin and the south Texas counties lining the Rio Grande — naturally will be a key component of the group’s effort.
According to Texas Democratic sources who have been in discussions with Battleground Texas officials, the group will also place an especially heavy emphasis on building up local county infrastructures in Republican-leaning areas.
Texas Democrats believe that boosting outreach and reviving long dormant local party infrastructures in places like Odessa and Midland — two medium-size west Texas cities where Republicans have long dominated — will be at least as important to these efforts as running up the vote margins in areas that are already heavily Democratic.
And they are confident that they will be able to make a pitch outside the state that the investment in Texas is worth it.
“If you want to have a progressive era in our country, it would help a lot to have Texas as part of that, so I think high-level donors understand the importance of Texas,” Aberly said. “Certainly, the people I’ve spoken to have understood it and have been very pleased that there’s something to this strategy.”
When you sign up at Battleground Texas it states this:
Change in Texas won’t happen overnight. Turning the state into a battleground that matters both locally and nationally will take a long-term strategy and a sustained push from grassroots activists.
But grassroots voices are already changing this country on a scale that was unheard of just a few years ago – and that kind of organization and local activism can do the same in Texas.
Thank you for joining the movement and for your support.
We all must realize this will be a years long struggle. Be sure to get involved locally, where we can do the most good, and help change Texas for the better.
Richard Wolff was on Bill Moyers & Company this week and the discussion was about our economic system. And the discussion turned to the lack of criticism of capitalism in our country, Taming Capitalism Run Wild.
Here’s an excerpt:
BILL MOYERS: But so few have done that. As you know, as you’ve written, as you have said, we’ve not had much of a debate in this country for, I don’t know, since the Great Depression over the nature of the system, the endemic crisis of capitalism that is built into the system. We have simply not had that kind of debate. Why do you think that is?
RICHARD WOLFF: Well, I think we have had it from time to time. We have had some of the greatest economists in the tradition, for example, Thorstein Veblen, at the beginning of the 20th century, a great American economist, very critical of the system. Someone who taught me, Paul Sweezy, another Harvard graduate. These are people who have been around and at various times in our history, the beginning of the 20th century, during the 1930’s, again in the 1960’s, there was intense debate.
There has been that kind of thing in our history. I mean, we as Americans, after all, we take a certain pride, which I think is justified, we criticize our school system. We just spent two years criticizing our health delivery system in this country. We criticize our energy system, our transportation system.
And we want to believe, and I think it’s true, that to criticize this system, to have an honest debate, exposes flaws, makes it possible to repair or improve them, and then our society benefits. But then how do you explain, and that’s your question, that we don’t do that for our economic system?
For 50 years, when capitalism is raised, you have two allowable responses: celebration, cheerleading. Okay, that’s very nice. But that means you have freed that system from all criticism, from all real debate. It can indulge its worst tendencies without fear of exposure and attack. Because when you begin to criticize capitalism, you’re either told that you’re ignorant and don’t understand things, or with more dark implications, you’re somehow disloyal. You’re somehow a person who doesn’t like America or something.
BILL MOYERS: That emerged, as you know, in the Cold War. That emerged when to criticize the American system was to play into the hands of the enemies of America, the Communists. And so it became disreputable and treasonous to do what you’re doing today.
RICHARD WOLFF: And for my colleagues, it became dangerous to your career. If you went in that direction, you would cut off your chances of getting a university position or being promoted and getting your works published in journals and books, the things that academics need to do for their jobs. So yes, it was shut down and shut off. And I think we’re living the results. You know, if I were–
BILL MOYERS: Of the silence? Of–
RICHARD WOLFF: Yes. Of the lack of debate. We’re living in an economic system that isn’t working. So I guess I’m a little bit like one of those folks in the 12-step programs. Before you can solve a problem, you have to admit you got one. And before we’re going to fix an economic system that’s working this way, and producing such tensions and inequalities and strains on our community, we have to face the real scope of the problem we have. And that’s with the system as a whole and at the very least, we have to open up a national debate about it. And at the most, I think we have to think long and hard about alternative systems that might work better for us.
BILL MOYERS: I was intrigued to hear you say elsewhere that this is not just about evil and greed. And yet you went on to say capitalists and the rich are determined not to bear the costs of the recent bailouts or the crisis itself. You even go so far as to suggest, as to question their patriotism, and that they may not have the country’s interest at heart. If that’s not greed, what is it?
RICHARD WOLFF: Oh, I think it isn’t greed. It’s– and let me explain why. Yes, I’m critical of corporations and the rich because they do call the shots in our society, and so that brings on them a certain amount of criticism, even though they don’t like it. So I will do that. But beyond that, let me absolve them in the following way. Bankers do what this system goads them to do.
If you talk to a banker, he or she will explain to you, “These are the things that will advance the interests of my bank. These are the problems I have to overcome. And that’s what I try to do.” And my understanding, and I’ve looked at this in great de– is that– that’s correct. They’re not telling a story. They’re doing. They’re following the rules. They do the things that advance their interests and they avoid the things that would damage their interests.
That’s what they’re hired to do as executives or as leaders of their institutions. And that’s what they do to the best of their ability. So for example, I’m not enthused about arresting these people or punishing them in this or that way. And the reason is simple, if we get, I won’t mention any names, but we get some banker and we haul him up in front of a court, and we find out he’s done some things that are not good.
And we substitute the next one. He gets arrested though, he gets fined, he gets removed. The next one is subject to the same rewards and punishments. The same inducements. The same conditions. If we don’t change the system, we’re not going to change the behavior of the people in it. So in a sense, I do absolve them even when they are greedy, because they’re doing what this system tells them to do. And if we don’t change the system, substituting a new crop will not solve our problem.
I recommend watching the whole thing. If your belief in the current system is solid then you shouldn’t have a problem. Hearing the other side shouldn’t scare anyone. There’s also some good history in the discussion. Until we have an honest discussion of what’s wrong with out economic system, we’re unlikely to fix our current economic problems.
More from Richard Wolff and Joe Stiglitz in the extended post.
As the special election runoff in Senate District 6 lurched into its final days, PDiddie at Brains and Eggs had a couple more posts on the sordid last-minute developments.
Neil at Texas Liberal posted a picture of an old VW van with a bunch of Republican bumper stickers.What kind of a lousy counterculture is that! Also, Neil continues to work on his new website that will feature a variety of creative efforts as well as a blog on the 2013 City of Houston elections.
==========
Snips from other Texas blogs…
Bluedaze previewed the tar sands pipeline presentation to be revealed at the National Summit to Stop the Frack Attack, in Dallas on March 2-3.
Grits for Breakfast also had a legislative dispatch; 101 House members endorsed a bill that criminalizes taking or distributing photos taken via drone without a court order.
The rally, organized by education advocacy groups under the banner “Save Texas Schools,” began with a five-block march down Congress Avenue and culminated with an assembly on the south lawn of the Capitol. Speakers included education reform advocates Diane Ravitch, who served as U.S. assistant secretary of education, and former Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott.
“We aren’t providing justice for all when our state Legislature cuts $5.4 billion out of public schools (in 2011) but somehow manages to find $500 million for Pearson Testing Corporation,” said Ravitch, a Houston ISD graduate.
“Texas is the place where the testing madness started, and Texas is the place where the vampire will get garlic in its face and a stake in its heart.”
Scott said tests will always be part of public education, but “they don’t need to be the end-all be-all of our public schools.”
Noted Scott: “I saw the system spinning out of control (as commissioner). We have increased the costs and the consequences at a time that we have cut funding.”
Protesters carried signs reading: “Flunk Governor Perry,” “Stop underfunding and over-testing,” and “We need more teachers, not more tests.”
Perry, Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, and Texas Education Agency Michael Williams were targeted by name.
Free taxpayer built schools and no accountability, that’s Sen. Dan Patrick’s charter school scam. Clay Robison has the details, Charter Proposal Avoids The Real Issue.
If Senate Education Chairman Dan Patrick thinks school districts have too many unused buildings – and apparently he does – he should look in the mirror. Some new buildings, particularly in fast-growth districts are empty because school districts couldn’t afford to staff and open them after Patrick and his colleagues in the legislative majority cut $5.4 billion from public school budgets two years ago.
In his new leadership position – and with $20 billion in surplus and Rainy Day money for lawmakers to work with – Patrick should be leading the charge to get the funding restored. But, no, he is talking about diverting even more money from public schools to a private school voucher program. And, with SB2, he would lift the cap on charter schools and require school districts to turn over unused buildings to private charter operators for an annual “rent” of $1.
Patrick would take public school buildings, constructed with local tax dollars approved by local voters, and give them to private companies operating charter schools with little or no local oversight.
Several charter school operators and other advocates, of course, testified for SB2 before the Senate Education Committee today. I watched part of the hearing and was struck by how one charter advocate missed the point when he suggested more charters could help Texas address the school dropout problem.
But dropouts aren’t lining up for charter schools. The relevant issue is preventing kids from dropping out in the first place. And, the best way to address that problem is for the state to focus its resources on traditional public schools, which is where the vast majority of children – both those who drop out and those who graduate — attend school. And, remember, the budget cuts for which Patrick voted included full-day, pre-kindergarten and other programs designed specifically to discourage kids from dropping out.
Various studies have shown that charters, on average, are no better or worse than traditional public schools. Some have been successful in Texas, but others have failed miserably – academically, financially or from poor management. This is not the time for the Legislature to give the charter industry a blank check on creating new charters while traditional public schools are still struggling from budget cuts.
Personally I find the whole government and business comparisons to be a bunch of crap. Because there should be no profit motive involved in government, the motive should be to provide great service for the taxpayers. Government should not be run like a business and business should not be run like a government. They’re different for a reason.
Be that as it may, Ross Ramsey makes some solid points on how Perry and the wing nuts use the business analogy only when it suits them, and throws it aside for ideological reasons when it doesn’t. Medicaid Expansion Confounds Conservatives.
Both Perry and Dewhurst can claim to know how the business world works, whether their recent records support it or not. But look at the capper: They and others are talking seriously about walking away from a gargantuan federal freebie.
The federal government is offering to pay all of the costs of expanding the Medicaid program to some of the state’s uninsured population for three years, then to pay 90 percent of the costs for several years after that. Texas could, according to a report commissioned by Texas Impact, an interfaith public policy group, spend $15 billion over the next 10 years and pull down $100 billion in federal funds as a result.
Here’s the business question: Why leave that kind of money on the table, especially if it’s going to be spent elsewhere if Texas opts out?
The argument for expansion is that it would take care of a lot of people for some period of time — even if it doesn’t take care of them forever. The choice is between insuring a crowd of people for a few or many years, or not insuring them at all. Between providing their health care in expensive and inefficient emergency rooms, or taking care of them by expanding Medicaid.
It’s not just a good-government take-care-of-those-less-fortunate thing, either. Medicaid has enough flaws to feed a dozen think tanks. But by expanding Medicaid, the state would also bring in billions of dollars to pay for health care for people who aren’t insured now, providing relief to local taxpayers who wouldn’t be on the hook for nearly as much uncompensated care, turbocharging the state’s medical economy, and bringing federal tax dollars paid by Texans back into the state.
If you don’t do that last bit, by the way, the money would otherwise go to places like California, Massachusetts and New York. Where’s the business sense in that? And where, because that’s a transfer of wealth in some measure from red to blue states, is the political sense?
It might be true that a Medicaid expansion will work only for a few years in Texas and other states; they can quit if that time comes. For many officeholders, it makes political sense to opt out. But if they were running state government like a business, without the political undertow, the conversation would already be over.
There are a few things Ramsey says that I don’t agree with. Like “..politicians understand how businesses operate”, and “Medicaid has enough flaws to feed a dozen think tanks”. But his general overall point that for the good of the state, Perry and the wing nuts should be able to set aside ideology and do what’s right, and hide behind an “it’s good for business” excuse, to do what’s right. That I can agree with. If that’s what it takes for the GOP in Texas to do the right and moral thing the so be it.
[UPDATE]: Perry is digging in, Gov. Rick Perry heckled in DC as he rules out Medicaid expansion.
Gov. Rick Perry faced hecklers this morning in Washington as he made clear today that despite mounting pressure, he won’t expand Medicaid, even though that could cut the number of uninsured Texans by as much as 1 million.
“We are not going to be expanding Medicaid in Texas,” he told the Texas State Society over the shouts of protesters filtering through the window of the Republican-run Capitol Hill Club, arguing that doing so would be too costly.
On the sidewalk, roughly 30 people shouted “Rick, Rick, You make me sick!” and “You will never be president.”
Inside, four people who paid $30 for a breakfast of scrambled eggs and chicken fried steak blended in with more than 100 members and guests of the Texas group, popping up to interrupt Perry at regular intervals.
“Do you bequeath our next generation of leaders death and illness? Healthcare is a human right. Healthcare is a human right, Gov. Perry. Do what is right for Texans,” one woman shouted at the governor before a Perry aide escorted her out.
“Two million people in your state do not have healthcare because you are refusing to have Medicaid expanded,” another heckler shouted later.
[UPDATE II]: Michael Lind at Salon has a great article on why Perry and the wing nuts don’t want to expand Medicaid, because they’re cheap labor conservatives. Southern poverty pimps:
Finally, there is the welfare state. Universal, portable social insurance programs like Social Security and Medicare increase the bargaining power of workers, by reducing the penalty for quitting a job because of poor wages or poor treatment. If they quit, they don’t endanger their healthcare access or their retirement security. Workers with adequate social insurance are more likely — to use a time-honored Southern phrase — to be “uppity.”
Apart from a high federal minimum wage, nothing could be a greater threat to the Southern cheap-labor economic strategy than universal, standardized federal social insurance. In order to maximize the dependence of Southern workers on Southern employers in the great low-wage labor pool of the former Confederacy, it would be best to have no welfare at all, only local charity (funded and controlled, naturally, by the local wealthy families).
But if there must be a modern welfare system, then the Southern oligarchy prefers a system that allows state governments, rather than Washington, D.C., to control eligibility and benefit levels. By controlling eligibility, Southern state governments can minimize the amount of the local workforce that has access to good social insurance, reducing the power of Southern workers to be “uppity.” At the same time, giving Southern states the option to have lower benefit levels provides the neo-Confederates with yet another bargaining chip, along with low wages and low taxes, that can be used by Southern state governments to lure business from more generous states or nations.
It is all a system, you see. Southern conservative policies toward immigration, labor unions, the minimum wage and social insurance don’t reflect supposed conservative or libertarian ideologies or values, even if conservative or libertarian intellectuals are paid to dream up after-the-fact rationalizations. These policies are reinforcing components of a well-thought-out economic grand strategy to permit the South, as a nation-within-a-nation in the U.S., to pimp its cheap, dependent labor for the benefit of local and foreign (non-Southern) corporations and investors.
