Minorities and Illegals Hogging up Obamacare?

The 2016 election brought out so much ugliness that it's sometimes overwhelming to think about much less digest. There's been analysis, finger-pointing and name-calling, but none of it changes the past. It's important to look to the future which, I admit, is hard to do given the direction that the federal government wants to take us.

One of the issues the 2016 election brought to the surface is the rampant racism, hatred, and misogyny that pulses through America's veins. Sometimes these pulses are larger and stronger than other times, but they have never ceased; they are always there.

Republicans like to put topics like welfare and healthcare into clean little boxes with such labels like "privilege". I remember under Bush, Jr., Republicans began to use the word "privilege" when talking about welfare and how it should be reformed. To some degree, I actually agree with them on this topic, but it certainly is NOT, nor has it EVER been a "privilege." We all pay into the till that is welfare and, should we ever need to use it, it is our right to have that money, not a privilege to. People forget this. But, Republicans count on that. They are master manipulators and master marketers. The Democrats could learn a lesson or two from them when it comes to mass marketing an idea and selling it.

As a result of this ability to master manipulate, Republicans have expertly convinced white people that minorities and (illegal) immigrants have stolen rights from Americans. What they really mean is that minorities and immigrants have stolen rights from white Americans. On this note, enter Trump. He rode this wave all the way to the White House. Taking this fear of "the other," he and Republicans campaigned for Obamacare repeal arguing that not only is it too costly, but that it is "giving away" healthcare to all those who didn't deserve it. In other words, the federal government is giving away healthcare to minorities and immigrants, mainly the illegal ones, and that this should be stopped.

But....really? Is this true? Are the minorities and illegals hogging up Obamacare?

Los Angeles Times published this article about children and healthcare. Taking a map of rural US counties, they were broken down by which counties voted for Hillary and which ones voted for Trump, and how much of those counties' constituents depended on government-issued healthcare.

For example, Fayette County in West Virginia overwhelmingly voted for Trump, yet 53% of its children rely on Medicaid and CHIP (Children Health Insurance Program).

564,000 people in West Virginia are covered by Medicaid.

47% of West Virginia children with special healthcare needs are covered by Medicare.

Fayette County in West Virginia is also mainly white. [1]

Do you think the parents of Fayette County are somewhat concerned as congressional Republicans move to cut hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade from Medicaid? These parents voted for someone who degrades women, stole from other businesses (by not paying them for services), filed for bankruptcy multiple times, doesn't understand policy or how to govern, yet rode to the White House on a mountain of racist and hatred-filled sentiments. He has even surrounded himself with people whose agenda is to bring back a white America (whatever that means). The hatred and fear of "the other" is so deep among white people that they willingly gambled on their children's health. Please read that sentence again.

Here's what kids lose without coverage:

- fewer to no check-ups

- fewer to no immunizations

- more lost days of school

- more trips to the emergency room

- families must choose: food or healthcare

I'm no economist, but the above short-list of what children lose without insurance doesn't seem to invest in a child's future which then, looking long-term, doesn't invest in the future of America. A sick child doesn't go to school who then falls behind who then drop-outs who then becomes a burden on society because s/he has no developed skills. How is this a cycle people want?

Here's what a kid gains when insured:

- better health

- improved reading and test scores

- lowers risk of being a high school drop out

- increases future earnings

20 years ago, about 14% of children nation-wide lacked healthcare coverage. Today, that number is at 5%. How is this a bad thing? Yet, "Senate GOP legislation would slash more than a third of federal Medicaid funds over the next 20 years and nearly double the ranks of the uninsured by 2026." [2] I always thought the idea for a country was to move forward, not backward.

Going back to the map of the rural US counties for a sec. Out of 780 counties looked at nationwide, 622 had a majority of children on Medicaid.  Most of these children are white (whose parents voted for Trump, let's not forget), and these children, the future of America, are at risk of losing healthcare if Trump and Republicans get their way. Please read that sentence again.

Aren't Republicans the party of "family values?" Are children no longer a part of that equation?

"The funding cap in the Senate bill would increase only at the rate of inflation, leaving states with an increasingly larger share of the medical costs, which have typically increased faster than inflation. And because the same flow of federal Medicaid money covers care for children as well as for poor seniors and the disabled, deep cuts would probably force states to decide who is more deserving of medical care." [3]

States will have to decide whether children deserve medical care or whether poor seniors and the disabled deserve medical care. Please. Read that sentence again. Then let me know who of you is itching to run for State Assembly, State Senate, or Governor with that possibly on the horizon.

A country is only as good as its constituents. If the constituents won't have a heart for everyone, including those who look different from them, there is no healthcare out there that can save that heart.

Map of the counties. [4] More detail found in article cited above, but for additional information, including seeing the above map, please visit here. 

For more information on the subject please read The Atlantic's "How Kids Would Fare Under the American Health Care Act."

[1] Levey, Noam N. "Children's health at risk in Trump country." Los Angeles Times, 06 July 2017: A1. Print.

[2] Levey, Noam N. "Children's health at risk in Trump country." Los Angeles Times, 06 July 2017: A9. Print.

[3] Levey, Noam N. "Children's health at risk in Trump country." Los Angeles Times, 06 July 2017: A9. Print.
[4] Krishnakumar, Priya and Levey Noam. 2017 July 6. "Medicaid's vital role for children in Trump Country." www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-medicaid-children/ 

     Trump Saves 1,000 Jobs; A Good Thing, Right?

     Trump will save more than 1,000 jobs in Indiana (out of 197,000 employees with United Technologies, parent company to Carrier Corps, maker of heating and cooling equipment. Also, coincidentally, a company that Vice-President-Elect Pence was originally unable to successfully talk into keeping jobs in his home state).

     Saving these 1,000 jobs is good news, right? Yes, I agree. To a point.

     Trump and Pence won't reveal the details of how this deal came about, but there is speculation that the company was probaby offered a "potential for lower taxes, a potential change in trade policies, etc" and US government contracts. "The Carrier deal could prompt other companies to try the same tactic, predicted Dan Ikenson, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. 'It creates a short-term political victory for the president-elect, but it opens up a Pandora's box in the sense that other companies are going to want the same sort of handout,' he said. 'It's better to have an overall policy that companies can bank on.'" [1]

     The way I understand the world, the reason there are policies, laws, and rules is so that everyone in society has an idea of the structure of how things operate. If you don't have a system in place, then how can you try to successfully predict an outcome? If you can't predict an outcome, how can you foresee any challenges? If you can't foresee a challenge, how can you determine that you're making the right decision about something? Without a set system, what will happen when one group is told one thing and another group is told another? How would ethical dilemmas be determined if there is no guideline?

     "Trump's staff also highlighted the president-elect's personal involvement, saying it was a sign of things to come as he works to keep jobs from fleeing. The style is unlikely to work on a larger scale, given the volume of companies that could opt to move manufacturing jobs. It may even provide an incentive for other companies to lodge similar threats in hopes of winning government give-backs." [2]

     I understand it's important for business to have incentive to keep jobs in the US. I wish a company would do that on its own, but it doesn't in the name of profits. And, I'm not necessarily against incentives for businesses. Without a company, there are no jobs. It's not a bad thing to help a company make money because an invenstment in the company is an investment in the employees it hires, and the employees invest in our economy. However, again, with no clear policy set in place in *how* these incentives will work and *what* those incentives will be across the board, I feel this creates an environment where businesses will have the upper hand in squeezing government to get what it wants. And what a business ultimately wants is profit. How do you profit? The easiest way is to start by having cheap labor. Thus, for Trump to meet all his promises, something is going to have to give, and the quickest way to do that is to threaten labor laws, workplace safety, and any other safety measures unions have in store to make sure employees are taken care of. In other words, relax all the laws and regulations that make companies ship jobs overseas where none of those demands have to be met. We all want our Apple and Mac products, our shoes and clothes, and toys for Christmas, but we don't want the high price tag. So, we may see more jobs come back or stay in the US, but the worker - the same person who most likely voted for Trump - will also, most likely, have to give up a lot in order to have that job. Does this help? Yes, there's a job; money in the bank, food on the table. But at what cost?

     This deal with Carrier also highlights the different styles between Obama and Trump. Obama would gather business leaders and academics to discuss economic issues, whereas Trump is "much more comfortable calling up a CEO and admoninishing him than he is sitting around a table with a bunch of policy wonks talking about the best way to change the incentive structure," said Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities and former economic advisor to Vice-President Joe Biden. He continued, "But if you're going to solve the economics of this, you've got to get at the incentive structure. You can't simply be handing out goodies to every single company that's planning to relocate." [3]

     I have a feeling that we're going to see a lot of action from Trump's Administration which is going to dazzle his supporters. They will get to point a finger at him and say, "Look! Finally someone is *doing* SOMEthing!" And, at the surface, this looks good. In fact, it looks really good. Things in Washington usually move at a glacial pace so this is going to seem like a welcome change. But, there's very little thought being given to what happens beyond that. What happens when a decision is made in haste? What happens when a decision is made without those discussions taking place? What happens when there's no process in place and the driving force is to just check-off a list?

     Again, with no clear structure of the process and incentives, you open up that Pandora's box that will further the divide between the wealthy and the not-so wealthy. And I ask, Who do you think wins at that game?

[1] Bierman, Noah and Puzzanghera, Jim (2016, December 1). Trump saves jobs, but at what cost? Los Angeles Times, p. A8.
[2] Bierman, Noah and Puzzanghera, Jim (2016, December 1). Trump saves jobs, but at what cost? Los Angeles Times, p. A8.
[3] Bierman, Noah and Puzzanghera, Jim (2016, December 1). Trump saves jobs, but at what cost? Los Angeles Times, p. A8.