Link: Ralph Northam pushes for Medicaid expansion in Virginia
Summary: Virginia's recently elected governor, a Democrat, is trying to fulfill a major campaign promise: to expand Medicaid for around 300,000 uninsured Virginians. The federal government would cover most of the expansion costs due to the ACA, but there is still dispute among the Republican-controlled Virginia legislature. While it seems it may pass one house, the Virginia Senate, which more influence from farther right-wing Republicans, is divided.
The budget Northam tried to pass, which includes the Medicaid expansion, was shot down due to Republican v. Republican disagreement, but he is trying again soon. He also has to deal with Republicans trying to include work-for-benefits legislation with the medicaid expansion, which he personally opposes but may have to concede to get the necessary votes. Virginia has until June 30th to pass the budget, so we will see whether or not the medicaid expansion is included by then.
Analysis: This has to do with what we have just been learning - government budgetary processes within the macroeconomic field. While this is Virginia's and not the national budget, it does include national spending, as a medicaid expansion in the state will be largely funded by the federal government.
I think our recent studies have illustrated that the government has a pretty crappy budget, putting us into greater debt each year. Whether or not this is a serious issue is a matter of contention, but I personally feel I'd rather not have our government be in debt, especially to foreign powers, which do hold a sizeable chunk of our debt.
While I'm not expressly against Medicaid, the last chapter showed us it is a huge expense for the government to fund, along with things like Medicare, Social Security, and the Defense budget. Personally I'd like to see spending for all of these go down drastically and for some more money to flow into things like scientific research and education, but since national policymakers have already decided to put more money into both the Welfare state and the Defense budget because they claim economic growth will create enough revenue to offset it (haha), the Virginia grab for those funds seems like a reasonable thing for Northam to do. Conceding a work-for-benefits legislation won't be the end of the world, and will still result in a lot of people being insured.
Questions:
1. What is your opinion about the Medicaid expansion? Do you agree with it?
2. What is your opinion on things like welfare/defense, the biggest expenses for our government, receiving even more funds recently? Do you think all this spending is good/safe, or do you think it will bite us later?
3. What about the work-for-benefits legislation? Does this seem like a fair concession?
5 comments:
The distribution of expenses going into our budget have been mostly going towards national defense and welfare, leaving a small amount of funds going into other areas. This seems kind of unfair and impractical to me, though I do understand the importance of money going into defense and aid towards those who are in need. I agree that it should be more balanced, so that each criteria of our budget has more than small amounts going into them. Like the most important areas of budget should get more funding, but not so much that it leaves little for anything else.
I find the work-for-benefits legislation to be extremely uncompassionate and misguided as it will only take away benefits from those who need them them the most. True, it would push those who aren't currently employed to venture out, find a job, and take control of their lives, but it doesn't factor in other problems such as ability/health, transportation, and childcare. What about those who in every single way cannot/aren't able to work? Why should they be punished because of something they can't control? I understand that helping people get off welfare not only improves their stability but also lessens the tax money associated with that program, but are we really going to kick those who don't meet that criteria to the curb?
I believe that Medicaid expansion is only good for the current era, and will only lead to more national debt in the future. However, each political figure only acts in interest of the people of their term, so often these governors and presidents do not act in preparation for the future. They have to satisfy their supporters to get reelected, and once they’re out of office, the nation’s problems are someone else’s burden to bear.
I disagree with previous opinions because I think that spending money to insure people under Medicaid is a worthy and necessary expenditure. In 2015, though Virginia had a relatively low poverty rate compared with the rest of the US, 1 in 10 people in state lived below the federal poverty threshold. Poverty has an undoubtedly profound impact on the people stuck in it and poor health is one of the biggest risks that plagues all age groups in poverty. Medicaid helps with medical costs and benefits low-income and low-resource families (there are other criteria) that might not have been able to afford healthcare otherwise. Virginia's welfare program also sucks, with the welfare rolls dropping by 75% since 1996 even though the poverty rate remains around the same. That being said, I think that investing money into improving welfare program and extending the reach of Medicaid (especially around the retirement time of Baby Boomer generation where a ton of old people are going to need to start taking care of themselves) is logical and should be a priority.
However, I do completely disagree with the vast amounts of money allocated to defense spending. We already spend almost triple the amount of the second-most funded national military (China) according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and Trump wants to spend even more money to increase military presence in Afghanistan, despite what he promised in his campaign. Furthermore, his administration justifies the increase in budgeting to more "dangerous" conditions, but historical records show that the world in the eyes of the White House is always getting more dangerous, and according to Trump in his SOTU speech, the military has already "almost 100%" nullified the DOD's primary concern in the last 15 years: the jihadist terrorist group ISIS and its territory grabs. There are a lot of other places that money could be more efficiently used and appreciated.
I feel like people are kind of creating a dichotomy where you have to spend money on either one thing or the other thing, and not both: "spend less on healthcare, more on education" etc. I completely agree with the fact that expenditures on healthcare and military are short-term solutions that don't exactly focus on the underlying problems with our nation, whereas spending money on things like research are more beneficial for our nation in a broader scope. However, if a government wants to spend money on something, it's clear that they will find a way to do so, even if they go in debt (debt isn't even that big of an issue anyways). Personally, I don't see how it can be possible or even humane for the government not to step in for such a big issue like health care, something that should be a universal right. Regardless of how the government accomplishes this, clearly some people in power right now just don't see it as a priority in their hands. And call me a socialist, but I don't see why we can't follow the ideas of some of the European countries that have gotten all this stuff figured out.
I think the medicaid expansion is a good thing, but one think you must consider is how we can get the money. It's in good heart, but how can this be executed? I think that money being allocated to the military is money not well-spent. I think that the work-for benefits are good as it gives Americans to work for a reason.
Post a Comment