A Lump of Coal for America's Poor

[Guest guest]

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/a_lump_of_coal_for_americas_poor.phpA Lump Of

Coal For America's PoorBill VaughanDecember 10, 2004

With President Bush set to make his tax cuts permanent for 2005 and push Social

Security privatization, the extra money to make up the difference has to come

from somewhere. Bill Vaughan of Families USA says it's likely to come from one

of the largest—and most vital—government programs: Medicaid. In a season of

doing good unto others, cutting taxes for millionaires and leaving severely ill

seniors in nursing homes without care is an immoral choice.

 

Bill Vaughan is government affairs director of Families USA.

 

Here’s a moral choice for Americans this holiday season: Give more tax breaks

for millionaires and cut payments to nursing homes, leaving our elderly out in

the cold, or put a break on the tax cuts for the wealthy and protect funding for

the Medicaid program—the only health lifeline for 51 million Americans,

including seniors in nursing homes.

 

That’s the decision we will soon be asked to make. The president is preparing

his budget request for 2005, and will make key decisions by the end of January,

including—most likely—making all previous tax reductions permanent. That will

cost about $1.65 trillion over a 10-year period. At the same time, the Pentagon

is expected to ask for another $70 billion for our military efforts in Iraq.

Nonetheless, the president says that, over the next four years, he wants to cut

in half our country’s unprecedented deficits of about $422 billion. And let’s

not forget about Social Security privatization. If the most-talked-about option

is honestly accounted for, it will increase deficit borrowing by about $1 to $2

trillion.

 

Maybe in some twilight zone of a parallel universe he could do all these things,

but in our universe, the numbers don’t add up. To achieve these goals, he will

have to ask for massive, massive cuts in existing programs.

 

What existing programs could possibly make a dent in the funding of these

various new proposals? Cut Social Security when you claim you are reforming it

without cuts? No way. Cut Medicare? That will be tough, especially considering

potential senior voter turnout.

 

What’s the next biggest domestic social program? Medicaid.

 

Medicaid is the federal-state health safety net that serves about 51 million

low-income Americans. This number includes about 25 million children, 8.4

million severely disabled, and 6.4 million seniors, of whom 1.3 million—mostly

widows over age 80—are in our nation’s nursing homes. Most of these nursing home

residents are seriously ill, and it is estimated that about 70 percent of them

have some memory loss, such as Alzheimer’s disease. Even if they had homes to go

to, the severity of their condition means they wouldn’t receive suitable care

from their families. Yet, with the average cost of nursing home care running

about $55,000 a year, most American families are unable to save for this

expense. Thus, Medicaid pays for about two-thirds of all nursing home residents,

and provides about half the funding of our nation’s nursing homes.

 

Medicaid is the program that the president proposed to cap and cut in his 2003

and 2004 budgets, but he never really pushed those proposals. This coming year,

if he is to achieve his other goals—permanent tax cuts but with deficit

reduction—he will have to push, and push hard for massive Medicaid cuts.

 

In 2003, he proposed a system that would have cut about one-sixth of total

Medicaid spending. By reducing federal spending on Medicaid, the proposal just

shifts costs to state and local governments, which can either raise local taxes

or just carry out cuts in services. Families USA calculated that if cuts were to

be achieved by reducing the number of people covered by Medicaid, it would

increase the number of uninsured Americans by about 7.4 million people (45

million were already uninsured in 2004). Of course, the cuts could also come

out of payments to hospitals, doctors and nursing homes.

 

And that takes us back to our most vulnerable elderly, who, because of the

budget decisions we are about to make, will be at risk of receiving poor-quality

care—if they can afford any care at all.

 

We can keep the promise of cutting taxes for millionaires. Or we can look after

the sickest and most vulnerable in our society.

 

The choice will be made by the administration in the next few weeks. Please, in

the holiday spirit, urge your members of Congress and U.S. senators not to cut

and cap the Medicaid program payments to your state. Click here to learn more .

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.gatrill.com/christmas.html

http://pets.care2.com/

 

" The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. " --

Plato

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

and yet this individual was reelected mainly by the poor who vote against therir

best interests due to some sort of what they call " moral values " !

 

C

DitziSis <mk2967 wrote: