Category Archives: health insurance

Dear Congressman, Why Are You

From the Department of Thanks A Bunch But Don’t Do Me Any More Favors

“Nevada’s premiums on the health-care exchange are likely to increase by about $843 next year as a result of Congress’s repeal of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate and a new Trump administration rule on short-term health insurance plans, according to a new report from the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress.

The report, released Friday, found that annual premiums nationwide will increase from an average of about $6,176 to $7,189 for the average 40-year-old, which is about a 16.4 percent increase. In Nevada, average premiums using the same benchmark are projected to rise from about $5,547 to $6,390, or an increase of about 15 percent.” [NVIndy]

All right, I’m not 40 years old and haven’t been for quite some time, but I can empathize with younger people trying to run households, raise kids, pay the bills, and keep it together.  What they don’t need is a 15% increase in their health insurance premiums.  And who does this help?  It doesn’t help promote the best practices of established health insurance corporations.  It doesn’t help those families who are facing rising costs for groceries and transportation.  It doesn’t help young people to sell them junk insurance that won’t actually cover expenses for major medical expenses for illness or injury.  It seems to primarily help the fly by night scam artists who want to sell insurance policies which barely deserve the name.  You can read the full report ?here.

From the Department of Questions to Ask Congress Critters which Don’t Include Why Are You An A–hole?

Dear Congressman ____ why is it impossible for you to vote in favor of a bill to require universal background checks for gun sales and transfers?  (It’s not like this doesn’t have massive support from the American people.  It’s not like this wouldn’t help to keep firearms out of the hands of individuals who shouldn’t have them in the first place.   And while we’re about it, what’s so impossible about limiting the size of magazines, or keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers?)

Dear Congressman ____ why, when banks had their most profitable quarter EVER, would you think it important to roll back the consumer protections of the Dodd Frank Act? [MoneyCNN] [Vox] [WaPo]

Dear Congressman ____ in what perverted universe is it considered acceptable to bait bears with donuts and bacon in order to kill them? To kill hibernating bears? To kill wolf pups? [NYMag]

Dear Congressman ____ Just what purpose is served by vilifying a Central American street gang and conflating its members with ALL immigrants to this great nation?  Criticizing a violent gang is laudable, conflating these people with ALL immigrants is inexcusable.  Since I’m not 40 years old and haven’t been for some time, I recall a time when this nation was recovering from a major war against a state which called Jews “vermin,” dehumanized them, and then used the appellation as an excuse to exterminate them.  Perhaps it’s time to have people, especially politicians, read (or re-read) Elie Wiesel’s Night.

Where does this lead?

“Wiesel’s prose is quietly measured and economical, for florid exaggeration would not befit this subject. Yet, at times, his descriptions are so striking as to be breathtaking in their pungent precision. He writes through the eyes of an adolescent plunged into an unprecedented moral hinterland, and his loss of innocence is felt keenly by the reader. His identity was strained under such conditions: “The student of Talmud, the child I was, had been consumed by the flames. All that was left was a shape that resembled me. My soul had been invaded – and devoured – by a black flame.” Night.

When bad things are done by bad people, bad things happen to innocent people.

Or maybe it would simply be easier to ask, Dear Congressman ____ why are you an A-hole?

Comments Off on Dear Congressman, Why Are You

Filed under ecology, financial regulation, Gun Issues, Health Care, health insurance, Immigration, Politics

Incentives? What’s good for Geese and Ganders: Medicaid Work Requirements

We can rest assured the Nevada Policy Research Institute (aka Koch Bros) will be staunchly defending the notion that poor or working Nevadans are so debauched that any form of financial support will cause them to head for the couch and the TV remote, witness their position on work requirements for Medicaid recipients:

“Medicaid is supposed to provide a safety net for those who are unable to help themselves — an admirable goal,” said NPRI policy analyst Daniel Honchariw. “Unfortunately, as the system currently works, it actually encourages many able-bodied adults to stay out of the workforce. As a result, the program isn’t just draining public finances, it’s eroding the self-sufficiency of those it’s purportedly supposed to be trying to help.”  [h/t Nevada Independent]

Dear Lord, I’d hate draining away anyone’s “self sufficiency.”  However, I’m not prone to illusions about innumerable people who for reasons beyond comprehension prefer “getting welfare” to having a job.  But Wait!  Nationally, 42% of those non-SSI, non-elderly with Medicaid health insurance are working full time, another 18% are working at part time jobs.  14% are not working because they are ill or disabled.  12% are caregivers for someone who is ill or disabled.  6% of the enrollees are in school, and 7% give other reasons for not being able to work. [KFF] So, let’s be rid of the Medicaid as Welfare motif — it’s not welfare, it’s a health insurance program.  Further, 60% of the recipients are working full or part time.  So, what are the income requirements for Nevadans in the Medicaid insurance program?

“In addition to the basic Medicaid requirements, petitioners must qualify by earnings. What are the income requirements for Medicaid in Nevada? Nevada Medicaid eligibility requirements pertaining to income are structured around the federal poverty level (FPL). This financial marker of determining Medicaid benefits eligibility considers the size of the family and larger households will have higher income limits. Medicaid can provide health care coverage to households with income up to 138 percent of the FPL. However, children younger than 19 years of age with incomes up to 205 percent of the FPL will also be eligible for medical coverage.” (emphasis added)

Now we come to the Income Trap phase of the argument.  We can’t, dare not, increase the minimum wage from a paltry $7.25 per hour, argue the Conservatives, because to do so would “cost jobs.”  However, if one takes out the plastic brains, punches in the numbers for a person working 40 hours per week at a minimum wage job the conclusion displayed in the little calculator window will be below the 138% FPL line.  Here’s a thought: If the Republicans are bent on removing working people from the Medicaid rolls, how about raising the minimum wage to a living wage?  And, now we continue on to the Geese and Gander finale.

We’ve just survived the enaction of the Republican Tax Cut, Tax-Scam, in which it was argued that if middle and working class Americans would shoulder the burden of supporting the federal government and allow the corporations and hedge fund managers to “keep more of their hard earned money,” then our prosperity will soar, the economy will boom and those hard-working wealth management titans will work even harder at their investment strategies.  So, pay them more and they will work harder, and make their money work harder.  Funny, this principle never seems to apply to working people who drive trucks, serve food, repair fuel injection systems, build houses, landscape properties, clean hotel rooms, sell merchandise, type memos, file records, stock shelves,… you get the idea.

Thus, what is sauce for the Geese (those hard working wealth management, upper 1% of the income earners, etc.) i.e. more benefits and breaks from the government is toxic bilge water for the other 99% Ganders, who if given even the least disincentive in the form of affordable health care will shed their uniforms and work clothes, head for the nearest couch and dissipate into a mere shadow of their former selves as their “self sufficiency” is drained by the system.

Perhaps we should call this out for what it is — yet another attempt to reduce the number of people eligible for assistance with their health care expenses because rich people don’t want to pay for it.  Because they imagine some otherwise healthy soul taking advantage of their fellows merely because the are “unworthy.”  If this sounds selfish, it’s because it is, essentially, a fundamentally selfish argument.  The saddest part of the entire issue is that the Geese having quacked for years about Welfare Queens (non-existent) and Unworthy Lazy Bums have convinced numerous Ganders of the horrors of expending any funds in support of those less fortunate.   There is one last point illustrative of the moral deficiency of the conservative argument.

Opioids.  Remember those 7% who gave other reasons for not working?  Some of them have been laid off from jobs and are seeking new employment, and some others are finding it difficult to secure employment because of opioid addiction.  Just for the record, Medicaid covers about 4 in 10 non-elderly adults with opioid addiction.  13.9% are white non-Hispanic; 6.6% are Black, and another 4.6% are Hispanic.  13.7% are males, 7.3% are females.  [KFF]  If we want to address opioid addiction in this country then we need to be taking care of those who are seeking help with this scourge, and not lecturing them about the wonders of the free market system and healthy lifestyles.

We could use a few less lectures on the Great American Rugged Individual and a few more mentions of our collective responsibility to care for our fellow citizens as we would wish to be cared for by them.

Comments Off on Incentives? What’s good for Geese and Ganders: Medicaid Work Requirements

Filed under health insurance, Medicaid, Politics

The Great Bamboozle: GOP Tax Plan Targeted Right At the Middle Of The Top 1%

There are some amazing feats of verbal legerdemain going on as Republicans try to explain why their Jam It Through Tax Plan isn’t a real bag of snakes.

Oh, don’t worry about our plan…people want to see an improving economy…people want to see more in their paychecks…now 90% of the people can file a simple return…there’s a lot of wishful thinking going on here, and most of it is wrong.  The political advertising is going to write itself in 2018.

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) is correct to say that “haste makes waste,” and in its haste the GOP is about to unload both barrels into their own feet.

The tax cuts will explode the debt.  Remember all the times the GOP told us that debt is a problem?  It certainly can be.  When there was a Democrat in the White House the Heritage Foundation positively screamed about the impact of increasing the national debt:

Current and projected increases in government debt, cutting into future economic growth rates, also mean slower future growth of government revenues. Even as future interest expense rises as taxpayers are called upon to service all this debt, growth in government revenues will slow, leaving less available for other priorities, such as national security and economic security, education, and innovation-driving research.

The only difference now is that the accumulated deficits will be driven by a Republican penchant for rewarding the investor class with amazing tax cuts.  Now the argument is reversed: there will supposedly be More revenue, More innovation, More funds for national security and research.  No there won’t. And we don’t need to kid ourselves, because the same basic economic elements are going to underpin the new tax/budget structure that are girding the current one. 

Nothing in the tax bill reverses the current emphasis on short term gains. The GOP is fond of pointing to gains in the stock market as “proof” of its stewardship of economic growth.  There’s an obvious problem with this, as noted by the Chicago Tribune:

Nearly half of country has $0 invested in the market, according to the Federal Reserve and numerous surveys by groups such as Gallup and Bankrate. That means people have no money in pension funds, 401(k) retirement plans, IRAs, mutual funds or ETFs. They certainly don’t own individual stocks such as Facebook or Apple.

So, nearly half the population has Zilch invested in The Market. What about the others?  While people don’t generally have elephantine memories, 2008 isn’t that far in the rear view mirror, and that’s part of the reason about 54% of Americans have some sort of investments, as opposed to the 62% prior to the Big Crash of 2007-08.

Further,  there’s some recent research indicating the decline isn’t over.

Rosenthal and Austin’s main focus was the precipitous decline of taxable investment accounts. In 50 years, the amount of stock owned by individual investors and funds outside retirement and nontaxable accounts such as 529 college-savings plans has dropped off a cliff — to about 25% in 2015 from over 80% in 1965.

But wait, there’s more:

The other startling finding was the growth in foreign investment in the US stock market. What was once a small sliver of the makeup now accounts for a quarter of all stock ownership at $5.5 trillion. Part of this may be due to increasing wealth in foreign countries, but, as the researchers noted, it could also be influenced by corporate inversions, in which foreign-domiciled firms have large direct holdings of US-based stock.

So, we have a structural situation in which the percentage of individual investors is declining precipitously, the percentage of institutional investors is increasing, as is the percentage of foreign investors.   It doesn’t take much effort to perceive that the produce of stock market gains aren’t going to benefit most Americans, but should assist institutional and foreign investors.

But surely those institutional investors will be looking for long term investment prospects and will act as a curb on short term pursuits as exemplified by hedge fund operations?  Nupe.  That part of the structure hasn’t changed either.  It’s not happening:

Across the world, a clamor is rising against corporate short-termism—the undue attention to quarterly earnings at the expense of long-term sustainable growth. In one survey of chief financial officers, the majority of respondents reported that they would forgo current spending on profitable long-term projects to avoid missing earnings estimates for the upcoming quarter.1

Critics of short-termism have singled out a set of culprits—activist hedge funds that acquire 1% or 2% of a company’s stock and then push hard for measures designed to boost the stock price quickly but unsustainably. 2 The typical activist program involves raising dividends, increasing stock buybacks, or spinning off corporate divisions—usually accompanied by a request for board seats.

If corporations increase profitability I am hearing, “raising dividends, increasing stock buybacks, and mergers, acquisitions, and spin offs.  I am NOT hearing investment in plant expansion, workers’ wages, and company benefits.  And, I’m certainly not hearing anything about encouraging the promotion of taxable investment accounts, the kind that  puts revenue into the Nation’s coffers.

Nothing in the tax bill addresses wage stagnation.   And, no, this is not a myth:

“After adjusting for inflation, wages are only 10 percent higher in 2017 than they were in 1973, with annual real wage growth just below 0.2 percent.[1] The U.S. economy has experienced long-term real wage stagnation and a persistent lack of economic progress for many workers.” […] ” The portion of national income received by workers fell from 64.5 percent in 1974 Q3 to 56.8 percent in 2017 Q2.”

Ouch.  Somehow, the Growth Fairy is supposed to be so enamored of tax cuts for corporations and wealthy individuals that more greenbacks will float down and squirm into the pay packets of average American workers.  Probably not, and putting more dollars into the pockets of institutional investors — foreign and domestic — isn’t going to be all that helpful either.  So, not only does the tax plan not address short term-ism, it doesn’t really address paycheck issues either.

But Wait! How about increasing the child tax credits and standard deductions?  It’s no secret that those people earning $75,000 or less aren’t going to be the big winners in this tax bill.  “The tax bill Senate Republicans are championing would give large tax cuts to the rich while raising taxes on American families earning $10,000 to $75,000 over the next decade, according to a report released Thursday by the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’s official nonpartisan analysts.” [WaPo]

But, but, but…Your tax filings will be simpler!  Simple doesn’t matter if you aren’t getting your taxes cut.  And, if the tax preparation deduction is eliminated then there are going to be some mom and pop franchises in serious straits — those just happen to be local small businesses as well.

But, but, but…jobs won’t go overseas!  You can only dream.  The arguments get a bit into the economic weeds, into territorial taxation, but the bottom line is clear:

This might seem like a small difference, but the design of their global minimum tax creates perverse incentives for companies to offshore jobs and shift profits to tax havens—outcomes that a per-country minimum tax would avoid.

Perverse indeed, especially if one expects the new tax plan to provides incentives for companies to expand operations domestically.  Nothing in this plan actually and directly promotes domestic expansion in the economy — it’s all indirect and absolutely hopeful, perhaps even illusory if not downright delusional.

In the meantime, Medicare will be facing cuts of about $25 billion.  There will be calls to “reform” Social Security” in order to reduce the debt — translation: Higher requirements for fewer benefits.  There will be calls to cut SNAP programs — not a drop in the bucket needed to fill the debt hole; and, educational funding — another squeeze on programs that actually help people eventually earn higher wages.

This won’t prevent Republicans like Nevada’s Senator Dean Heller from enjoying the passage of a “great tax cut,” while he hopes to high Heaven no one in the state notices cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, Childrens’ Health Insurance, and no one talks about increased premiums in the individual health insurance market.  Perhaps no one will notice that graduate students at UNR and UNLV are supposed to pay taxes on tuition waivers while they’re actually earning minimum wages for part time jobs?  No one will notice the reduction in home mortgage interest deductions?  No one will observe the reduction or elimination of deductions for major medical expenses — much of which will be out of the pockets of the elderly.

My guess is that Nevadans will notice.  The political ads may, indeed, write themselves.

 

 

Comments Off on The Great Bamboozle: GOP Tax Plan Targeted Right At the Middle Of The Top 1%

Filed under health insurance, Heller, Nevada economy, Nevada politics, Politics, Taxation

Demolition Days On End

The television talking heads are talking about today’s sound and fury from the White House as “Demolition Day;” as if every day the mullet-maned moron occupying the Oval Office hasn’t been doing this from day one.

What is buttressing my sanity for the moment is the fact that MMM had a 49.4% approval rating in Nevada as of January 2017 (38.9% disapproval) and dropped to an approval rating of 43.6% in September 2017 and a disapproval rating of 51.2% in the Silver State.  [CNBC]

Much more love from the Republican Congress and the President and Nevada’s going to find itself in a world of hurt.   Case in point:  If the Republicans get their way in the FY 2018 budget 56,044 Nevada families will lose food assistance as of 2023, and 52,613 will lose them as of 2027.   But wait, there’s even more fun … another grand idea in this budget fiasco is to shift $100 billion of SNAP costs to the states.  So, Nevada would have to come up with 10% of the costs by 2020 and this increases to 25% in 2023 and beyond. Just in case lower income, mostly working, families in Nevada aren’t punished enough the GOP plan says states will have more “flexibility” to cut benefit levels to “manage costs.”  Of course Nevada will have to figure out how to get lower income working families basic food items at the local groceries, at state expense.  In case someone’s thinking this makes economic sense (that tired old canard about welfare queens on food stamps with waste and fraud) the actual numbers indicate that for every $5.00 spent on food stamps $9.00 is generated in economic activity. [CBPP] [MJ]

Case in point: The FY 2018 budget calls for cuts in fire-fighting operations.  As if the fires in California weren’t headline news at the moment.  The IAFC isn’t happy  seeing an FY 2017 budget of $2,833,000 for wildland fire management cut to $2,495,058 in FY 2018; or cuts to State Fire Assistance from $78 million down to $69.4 million, and Volunteer Fire Assistance from $15 million to $11.6 million.  And, by the way, the FLAME program (pdf) funding (wildfire reserve suppression fund, large fires) would be eliminated in the GOP budget.  Supposedly, the FY 2018 would sustain current 10 year average costs for fire suppression. [ECO]  The word “supposedly” is used with some caution, because as we experience climate change effects, the cost of fire suppression can be reasonably expected to increase, with a coterminous effect on budgets.   Meanwhile, there’s the matter of expensive fires in Napa and Sonoma counties.

And, then there’s the not-so-small matter of FEMA:

“The president’s budget blueprint calls for FEMA’s budget for state and local grants to be cut by $667 million, saying that these grants are unauthorized or ineffective. The program it explicitly calls out as lacking congressional authorization is the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program, and a second proposed change would require all preparedness grants to be matched in part by non-federal funds. All of FEMA’s pre-disaster grants are meant to reduce federal spending after disasters, and according to the agency’s website, there’s evidence that $1 in mitigation spending saves $4 in later damages.”  [Newsweek]

There are two points to highlight in this paragraph.  First, the budget cuts are made to grants for disaster mitigation efforts, without saying why the grants are “ineffective,” and we should note that any program can be declared “ineffective” if the standards aren’t reasonable. Secondly, as in the case of food stamps, there’s an upfront economic benefit — for every $1 spent on mitigation we save $4 in subsequent damage costs.   Once more we have a grand example of being penny wise and pound foolish.

Nor are the Republicans keeping their promises not to mess with Social Security and Medicare.

“Not only would it (the FY 2018 budget) cut Medicaid by $1 trillion, it would also cut Medicare by more than $470 billion in order to pay for hundreds of billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest people and most profitable corporations in America. Further, the Republican tax plan this budget calls for would increase the federal deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next decade, which will likely pave the way for savage cuts to Social  Security.”  [SenDem]

Oh, and by the way… let’s sabotage the NAFTA talks, scrap the only treaty containing Iran’s arms aspirations (and tick off all the other European allies who signed on), send a signal to North Korea that our word’s not worth paper on which it’s written, let the health insurance market destabilize into chaos, and withdraw from UNESCO.

And here we sit, not a shining beacon on a hill, but a flickering flame bent to whatever winds happen to be blowing through the head of MMM in the White House.  Not only are programs and services in peril within our own state, but the nation and the world are facing similar dangers emanating from an unraveling White House.

Comments Off on Demolition Days On End

Filed under Economy, FEMA, Health Care, health insurance, Nevada, Nevada budget, Nevada economy, Nevada politics, Politics, public health, Republicans, Social Security, tax revenue, Taxation

While We’re Ducking and Dodging

While we’re ducking, dodging, and otherwise attempting to avoid damage from the GOP, they’re still busy with legislation to make our lives just a bit more difficult.  Cases in point:

The House leadership has delayed, but hasn’t promised to discard, a bill, HR 367, to allow the general sale of silencers — which the proponents tell us will mitigate hearing loss for gun owners.  Pro Tip: A nice pair of headset style ear protectors will set you back about $30.00 (if the foamies will do you can buy’em for about 12 cents each in a bucket of 200) as opposed to spending $1300.00 on a suppressor for your AK/AR-some number or another.

The GOP tax cut legislation, which somehow is being titled “reform,” is a walloping giveaway to the top income earners in the U.S.  Not sure about this? See the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, that tells us those in the bottom 20% will see 1.3% of the tax benefits while the top 1% will enjoy 67.4%. Bringing this closer to home, the top 1% of income earners (which amounts to about 0.4% of our population) will get a 70.7% share of the tax cuts. For all that chatter about the Middle Class, the plan doesn’t really help middle class Nevadans:

“The middle fifth of households in Nevada, people who are literally the state’s “middle-class” would not fare as well. Despite being 20 percent of the population, this group would receive just 4.6 percent of the tax cuts that go to Nevada under the framework. In 2018 this group is projected to earn between $38,900 and $60,600. The framework would cut their taxes by an average of $380, which would increase their income by an average of 0.8 percent.”

Just to put this in context, a family in Nevada’s middle income range would see a tax cut of about $380…meanwhile back at the home mortgage, if that family is in Reno where the average home loan is about $187,000, the monthly payments are about $855 per month.  Congratulations Middle Class Nevadans, you may receive an annual prize of 44% of one month’s mortgage payment.  Color me unimpressed.

The GOP passed its version of the FY 2018 budget on a 219-206 vote.  Representative Mark Amodei (R-NV2) voted in favor of the bill; Representatives Kihuen, Titus, and Rosen were in Las Vegas attending to their constituents in the wake of the massacre at the music concert.   The AARP was quick to notice that the Republican plan calls for $473 BILLION to be cut from Medicare over the next 10 years.   Expect a cap on the Medicaid program funding; it wouldn’t be too far off to estimate cuts of about $1 TRILLION in that category.   Beware when Republicans speak of “entitlement reform,” that simply means cutting Social Security benefits and Medicare.  When they say “welfare reform,” they often mean cutting Food Stamps, Housing Assistance, and Medicaid.   Representative Amodei might want to explain why he supports cutting Medicare by $473 billion over the next decade?

Those in Nevada’s 2nd Congressional District can reach Representative Mark Amodei at 202-225-6155 (Washington DC) 775-686-5760 (Reno), or 775-777-7705 (Elko);  the office addresses are — 332 Cannon Building, Washington, DC 20515; 5310 Kietzke Lane #103, Reno, NV 89511; 905 Railroad Street, Ste 104D, Elko, NV 89801.

Comments Off on While We’re Ducking and Dodging

Filed under Amodei, Economy, Federal budget, Health Care, health insurance, housing, Medicaid, Medicare, Nevada, Nevada economy, nevada health, nevada taxation, Politics, Republicans, Taxation

GOP assault on health care in rural Nevada

There’s a tendency to see social needs as an element of urban living in major cities like New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago, and rural poverty as something that happens in Appalachia.  This perspective obfuscates two features of life in Nevada.  For all intents and purposes Nevada is an urban state.  Not only is Nevada “urban” it is getting more so.  In 1970 about 80.9% of Nevada residents lived in urban areas, in 1990 the percentage was 88.3, and as of 2010 the percentage was 94.2% [ISU.edu]

By contrast, New York state as of 2010 was 87.9% urban, and Illinois 88.5% urban, while Nevada is closer to California’s 95% urban population. [ISU.edu]  However, to perceive rural Nevada as a wonderland of “freedom” and rugged individualism is to miss some crucial figures describing life in the “cow counties.”

For example, Pershing County has an 18.3% poverty rate; the US poverty rate is 12.7% [census] but the county does support a critical care hospital with a skilled nursing facility  with a maximum capacity of 25 residents.  The county’s population also includes 11.1% disabled people under the age of 65.   Given these figures, perhaps some politicians would like to explain why slashing Medicaid now and all but eliminating the national program by 2027 would be a good idea for Pershing County, Nevada.

Neighboring Humboldt County has a lower poverty rate, at 9.4% and a lower rate of disabled individuals under the age of 65 at 8.3%, but reducing the Medicaid program would have a deleterious effect on its 53 bed hospital, with an ICU, Obstetric services, and skilled nursing facility for 30 residents.  What effect of cutting Medicaid might be seen in the county’s ability to care for its aging population, including its hospital’s plans to incorporate a “memory care services unit” in its offerings?  [hgh] Recall that some 60% of all skilled nursing home residents get their health insurance coverage from Medicaid.

More populous Elko County has a poverty rate of 9.9% and an 8.4% rate of individuals with disabilities under the age of 65.  The county is home to a short term acute care hospital with 59 beds, and a resident center for 110 people needing skilled nursing care.   Again, if 60% of those SNF residents rely on Medicaid for their insurance coverage then cutting funds in 2027 then 66 families will be under increased pressure to find suitable and appropriate care for elderly family members.

Now, consider that Nevada is an urban state, and that should the Republicans get their wish for a capped Medicaid system of block grants then the state would be tasked with allocating increasingly spare resources to maintain nursing home and hospital facilities statewide.  Given the 2.115 million people in Clark County contrasted with the 52,168 population of Elko County, the 6,650 in Pershing County, and the 16,842 in Humboldt County — where are the monetary resources likely to go?

If Congressman Mark Amodei (R-NV2) and Senator Dean Heller are truly representing the needs of rural Nevada, then offering platitudes about “freedom,” “free enterprise,” and “individual initiative” are a poor substitute for enacting legislation to maintain and improve the health care facilities and the insurance availability to those facilities for northern Nevada rural citizens.

Comments Off on GOP assault on health care in rural Nevada

Filed under Amodei, Health Care, health insurance, Heller, Medicaid, Nevada politics, Politics

It’s not over until the fat lady sings adios to the current Congress

This is your Monday morning reminder that Republican attempts to kill the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid aren’t history.  The Graham-Cassidy Bill, which would mean a net loss of coverage for 243,000 Nevadans, still lives, and at long as it does so we have to keep those phone lines busy.

Please let Senator Heller know that his latest attempt to foist off a “Repeal and Replace” effort onto Nevadans is actually worse than his last performance on behalf of the Senate’s “skinny bill.”

“Graham-Cassidy’s impact on coverage in 2027 would be similar to that of the Obamacare Repeal Reconciliation Act (ORRA), the so-called “repeal and delay” bill that the Senate failed to pass in July. Under both the ORRA and Graham-Cassidy, these three major policies would be in effect a decade from now:

  • Repeal of the mandates for individuals to obtain health insurance coverage and large employers to offer insurance

  • Elimination of subsidies for nongroup health insurance

  • Elimination federal funding for the ACA’s Medicaid expansion” [CAP]

No individual or employer mandates to stabilize the insurance market, no assistance for those trying to find insurance in the private market, and the loss of Medicaid assistance for working Americans.  And, why all of this effort?

The Republican plan to lower taxes for those in the top 1% of American income earners won’t “add up” without cutting help for average Americans under the ACA and without pulling the rug out from under those (including retirement center residents and children) who are insured by Medicaid.

Senator Heller can be contacted at:  202-224-6244; 702-388-6605; and 775-686-5770

You may also want to thank Senator Catherine Cortez Masto for her support of Nevada families who rely on the ACA and Medicaid for their health care insurance needs.  202-224-3542; 702-388-5020, and 775-686-5750.

Comments Off on It’s not over until the fat lady sings adios to the current Congress

Filed under Health Care, health insurance, Heller, Medicaid, Politics