The Folly of Expanding Medicaid

Getting health care in emergency rooms stinks. But it's better than no health care at all.
Getting health care in emergency rooms stinks. But it’s better than Medicaid when Uncle Sam goes into default.

by James A. Bacon

As Richmond lawmakers ponder whether or not to expand Virginia’s Medicaid program, the center-left Commonwealth Institute has made another pitch for the program. Their paper, “Medicaid is Far from Broken,” creates plausible talking points to bolster anyone inclined to accept the federal government’s offer to cover the vast majority of the costs associated with the expansion.

Some 400,000 uninsured, low-income Virginians would receive medical coverage, argue Massey Whorley and Michael J. Cassidy. The Medicaid program is efficient; it has lower administrative costs than private insurance. Medicaid costs less than private insurance. Contrary to claims that doctors are deserting the Medicaid program, almost as many physicians are accepting new Medicaid patients as are accepting new patients with Medicare or  private insurance. And contrary to reports that the health outcomes of Medicaid patients differ little from those of the uninsured, Medicaid recipients are more likely to report good health than the uninsured.

“Medicaid isn’t broken,” write Whorley and Cassidy. “Far from it. Lawmakers should expand Medicaid to get hard-working Virginians the help they need.”

Medicaid may not be broken (the point is arguable, but I’ll grant it for the purposes in order to make a larger point) but the federal government very nearly is. The Medicaid push in Virginia comes just as the federal government is hobbled by a partial shutdown and facing default on the national debt. Even more strikingly, the much-anticipated roll-out of the Obamacare health-care exchanges, a companion initiative to the Medicaid expansion, has been stymied by a disastrously flawed IT system.

Is this really a good time to make 400,000 more Virginians dependent upon the fiscal solvency of the federal government?

Die-hard liberals will say yes. The political problems of the federal government are all the fault of evil Republicans, and if they just behaved themselves, there wouldn’t be a problem. Yeah, and if pigs had wings, they could fly. The Republicans aren’t going away. They might buckle under public pressure but they aren’t going away. They’ll come back and re-fight the same battle every time the debt ceiling need to be raised.

Even if the Republicans did go away — it is possible that the Dems will trounce the GOP in the 2014 election — the budget issues won’t. The nation still is saddled by a $17 trillion debt. Deficits still are running at more than $500 billion a year and, even according to the Obama administration’s forecasts, red ink will resume its rise as aging Boomer retire and cash in on Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. The Social Security disability trust fund is almost empty — no one is even talking about a fix. President Obama has ignored the recommendations of his own Bowles-Simpson budget-balancing commission, and he has shown zero interest in reforming entitlements — except to expand them.

If federal finances are unsustainable over the long run and Uncle Sam faces eventual financial collapse — liberals won’t accept that premise, but most other Americans do — is it really a good idea to expand the population’s dependence upon the Medicaid program? Shouldn’t we be distancing ourselves from the federal government and reducing peoples’ dependence upon federal transfer payments? Here in Virginia, shouldn’t we be looking instead for ways to drive costs out of the health care system and to make private insurance affordable to more people?

If we expand Medicaid and dismantle the system for indigent and uncompensated care, as inadequate as it is, what safety net will exist for the poor and near-poor should the federal government go into default? Where will those people go for care? Who will pay for them? What plan will the Commonwealth Institute recommend for picking up the pieces on short notice?

With a dysfunctional government in Washington, D.C., expanding Medicaid in Virginia is madness.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

26 responses to “The Folly of Expanding Medicaid”

  1. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Lacking in your arguments: what YOU would do to help provide health care for the poor.

    They remain needy despite your complaints about federal spending.

  2. (1) Get employers out of health care. Eliminate the employer tax deduction for medical insurance (or provide the same deduction for individuals).
    (2) Promote more insurance competition. Eliminate mandated benefits. Allow competition across state lines. Foster health savings accounts.
    (3) Create market transparency so consumers can rate providers and insurers on the basis of value (price and quality).
    (4) Eliminate barriers to business innovation. Allow the hospital industry to restructure along the lines of “focused factories.”

    Drive down the cost of medicine and provide bare-bones health insurance plans. We can make health care affordable to many more Americans.

  3. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    My solution?

    Single carrier like most of the other advanced industrialized counties.

  4. Tell Mr. Worst President Ever to stop kissing the ____ of the Plaintiff’s Bar. Enact tort reform. How about no fault malpractice, like Virginia does for birth defects?

    Where does the obligation to provide health care come from? In other words, does something existing make health care a right? Does it extend to cosmetic surgery? Lasik? How about a right to a safe car every five years? Or a guaranteed income (shades of Dick Nixon)? A home with a bedroom per person and a bath per every three?

    If the economy had picked up as it had after other recessions, a lot more people would be working and able to afford insurance premiums. But it’s too early in his presidency to blame Obama.

    1. Breckinridge Avatar
      Breckinridge

      Don’t hold up Virginia’s Neurological Birth Injury Fund as any kind of bright idea unless you’ve really looked at it and are ready to defend it. It is funded by some pernicious taxes and administration is a bear. Take that idea and expand it to all procedures with bad outcomes and the health system would crash faster than you can say Show Me The Money three times.

  5. we HAVE TORT laws in Va already!

    re: ” Is this really a good time to make 400,000 more Virginians dependent upon the fiscal solvency of the federal government?”

    the trouble is that you are laboring under the impression that these folks do not get health care.

    they do – and it’s not cost effective at all..

    re: ” where does the obligation come from”… for MediCare -???

    why do we have Medicare which gives each beneficiary more than 5,000 in subsidies?

    how do you justify that for one segment of society and then ask about the “obligation”?

    the “obligation” is to NOT have a totally unfair system that provides major healthcare benefits to some but not to others AND at the same time allow the “others” to get their health care at ERs -then we pay for it.

    we have in health care – something very similar to “separate but equal” logic.

    as far as Jim’s ‘ideas’:

    (1) Get employers out of health care. Eliminate the employer tax deduction for medical insurance (or provide the same deduction for individuals).

    and what will happen in terms of the numbers who don’t have insurance
    and cannot get it?

    (2) Promote more insurance competition. Eliminate mandated benefits.

    be specific here.. what are we not doing right now that we need to be doing?
    Are you advocating that govt force competition or not? name you specific ideas.

    Allow competition across state lines. Foster health savings accounts.

    what prevents that right now? again.. how would you do this without govt?

    we already have HSAs.. what more would you do? Would you allow each person to get a refundable credit for all of their health care expenses on page 2 of the 1040 ( so even folks who don’t itemize get the credit?) If everyone got that credit would it affect the tax revenues of the country ?

    (3) Create market transparency so consumers can rate providers and insurers on the basis of value (price and quality).

    ok.. let’s get rid of the WEASEL WORDS – do you MEAN GOVERNMENT?

    (4) Eliminate barriers to business innovation. Allow the hospital industry to restructure along the lines of “focused factories.”

    would you repeal EMTALA? would you provide govt funding to hospitals that treat those without insurance?

    wen you say “allow” are you implying there are existing govt laws against or are you advocating new laws to supersede the states laws?

    the biggest single problem is that our health care system is, in fact, a convoluted mess and it probably cannot be left to operate without Federal laws…

    but when you don’t take “ideas” into actual proposed legislation – we have no idea if such legislation would be just as complex as ObamaCare or not and the likelihood is it would be just as complex…

    is that why we never see actual proposed legislation from the folks who oppose ObamaCare?

    It does not count when the GOP has “ideas” that amount to each elected official having “ideas” but as a group they cannot agree to propose actual legislation … the GOP is totally bogus when it comes to actually producing SOMETHING that they will support and citizens can decide if they like the proposal.

    you cannot “win” on the health care issue by refusing to generate legislation.

    it’s totally bogus.

    the GOP is no more serious about health care than they are about immigration. They are so divided inside their own ranks – they are incapable of agreeing as a group of offering legislation that incorporates their ideas.

    we should admit that the GOP is proving itself incapable of governing these days. The GOP has become a modern day Banana REpublic.

  6. The really funny thing about the MedicAid Expansion is that it’s for the working poor.

    Basic MedicAid covers those who cannot work.

    ObamaCare will cover those who work who CAN afford a means-tested premium

    the “donut hole” are the folks in between ObamaCare and basic MedicAid.

    they work but they cannot afford even minimal insurance and they typically go to ERs to get their care – AND when they do – the ER bill turned over to a collection agency – often drives them into bankruptcy when then often forces them to leave their job because the wages are attached.

    TMT asks “what is our obligation”.

    there are 2:

    1. – it’s wrong for us to preside over a fundamentally discriminatory system where some folks get $5000 subsidies and others we refuse to give a dime.

    2. – in the end – the rest of us are going to pay – anyhow – and the question is do we want to pay a lot more than we could or are we so stupid that we won’t admit it?

    to Jim Bacon – there is not a single country on the planet that works the way you advocate.

    there are OECD countries and there are 3rd world /developing world countries and not much in between.

    I only say this. If you want to advocate for something that does not exist – then you:

    1. – need to be VERY SPECIFIC about what you are advocating – not vague

    2. – you need to DISCLOSE and ADMIT – up front whether or not you
    approach actually does require government or not – because the “get govt out of health care” words that you use – don’t match the things you say later about what insurers and providers “need to do”.

    do you want govt or not?

    3. – nothing is as flabby and useless as a gazillion “ideas” about what we should do – and no significant group of folks who oppose the current system, can themselves AGREE on a single approach they would support.

    I call this the all talk and no walk school of “reform”.

    we got lots of “ideas” but “ideas” are like warm spit … in this world – if you are serious about what you say – you have to do MORE than just AGREE to oppose what you don’t like.

  7. Larry, if we expand Medicaid, shouldn’t the state eliminate virtually all of the payments it makes for coverage for low-income and non-insured state residents? Otherwise it reminds me of Fairfax County Public Schools during the gravy days. The administration proposed taking over pay more retirement costs in lieu of a raise. OK, but then the Schools also gave raises because the county employees got raises.

    I am not opposed to any government involvement in health care. I do think the government, most especially the federal government, is highly inefficient and big government programs are usually hijacked by the providers. Within 10 years, Omabacare will need massive taxpayer bailouts.

    I still disagree that there is any right to health care and don’t buy your argument about taxes. Such a right could be created, but it doesn’t exist. Rights and duties should be established by law and not in the minds of individuals.

    1. TMT – the people covered in the expansion don’t current get MedicAid. In Va, if you are able-bodied and work you cannot get MedicAid.

      ObamaCare reduces payments to hospitals for the indigent.

      you say govt is inefficient – Both Medicare and MedicAid are among the most efficient of healthcare in the US.

      Medicare Is More Efficient Than Private Insurance

      http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/

      another: ”
      Medicare, Medicaid Far More Cost-Efficient Than Private Insurance”

      google the part in quotes to get the link.

      re: “rights” – we’re back to the “equal protection” part of the Constitution.

      If you are going to give one group “rights” then the other group is also entitled to the SAME treatment.

      If we are not going to subsidize health care for one group then how do we justify doing it for other groups?

      that creates an unfair system – that is morally wrong.

      It’s hypocritical for one to receive 5,000 in subsidies for guaranteed access to health care – cannot be denied for pre-existing conditions and cannot be charged more than others…

      that person gets that level of insurance – and that person opposes others getting anything even close to that.

      how could you support that? what would be the justification for have such a discriminatory system? On what basis?

      1. Larry, I understand and respect your equal protection argument. However, the law and Constitution aren’t interpreted that way. We already treat similarly situated people alike – everyone with employer-provided insurance is treated the same for tax purposes and every person 65 years or older is treated the same for Medicare purposes. There is no right to health care outside statutes. There is no right for a person who doesn’t have employer-provided insurance to have society help him/her pay for insurance .

        1. TMT – no.. the Constitution does not say “similarly situated”.

          Remember the “separate but equal” thing?

          I’m not saying there is a right to health care.

          I’m saying that if we provide tax breaks and subsidies for health care that they need to extend to everyone equally.

          It’s patently unfair to treat people who have employer-provided health care “better” than people that don’t have it or people who get Medicare and 5K subsidies “better” than people who can’t get Medicare nor Employer-provided healthcare nor able to get a tax credit for their health care expenditures.

          It may “technically” meet the Constitution but it totally violates the spirit of the Constitution and the Law to have the tax code and health care laws benefit some and penalize others.

          1. From Phyler v.Doe (1982), where the U.S. Supreme Court held states have an obligation to provide a public school education to illegal alien children.

            “The Equal Protection Clause directs that ‘all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.’ F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920). But so too, ‘[t]he Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.’ Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147 (1940). The initial discretion to determine what is ‘different’ and what is ‘the same’ resides in the legislatures of the States. A legislature must have substantial latitude to establish classifications that roughly approximate the nature of the problem perceived, that accommodate competing concerns both public and private, and that account for limitations on the practical ability of the State to remedy every ill. In applying the Equal Protection Clause to most forms of state action, we thus seek only the assurance that the classification at issue bears some fair relationship to a legitimate public purpose.”

            In City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1985), the Supreme Court summarized the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, ” The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” which is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” The Court cited the Pyler case.

            People with employer-provided insurance are similarly situated and must be treated alike for income tax purposes. People 65 and over are similarly situated and must be treated alike for Medicare purposes.

          2. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896, which allowed state-sponsored segregation, insofar as it applied to public education. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Warren Court’s unanimous (9–0) decision stated that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This ruling paved the way for integration and was a major victory of the civil rights movement.

            Equal Protection would not apply to those who don’t have employer-provided insurance, I agree.

            but giving one set of people special tax preferences for health care expenditures and not allowing others to have the same benefit for health care expenditures – for those without employer-provided but out of their own pocket seems wrong.

            It may or may not be something litigated (like same sex) but clearly we have a system that treats some people unfairly compared to others.

            If not a legal issue, it’s certainly a moral one where folks like you and I benefit from it and others are harmed and you and I have the choice to take it and oppose fairness for others – or to speak up for what is right.

            I choose the latter. It’s wrong and it needs to be changed.

            I stood up for the civil rights of blacks on the same basis.

            and I do not regret it.

            My view: do what’s right.. even if you lose, you feel better about yourself.

          3. I would support giving people who buy their own health insurance the same deduction from taxable income that businesses have. This change is certainly better than the monstrosity the ACA is turning out to be. Maybe we could close an unneeded military base or more to help fund this.

            I do think we need to be extremely careful about creating more obligations to transfer income. I am presuming the US will address illegal immigration with some form of amnesty. By making illegals legal, we will create a huge community eligible for taxpayer-provided benefits, which, in turn, will drag the economy even more. Moreover, the domestic supporters of the illegals will toss them to the lions once they achieve legal status. They will be undermined economically by more illegal immigrants. We are close to the tipping point where the safety net has become cement overshoes.

  8. I do NOT believe in giving away health care especially to able bodied people who can afford it but choose not to.

    BUT I do think it’s patently dumb for us to pretend that people who don’t have or cannot get insurance will not get health care.

    they’ll get it – and we’re going to pay for it.

    the question is – can we do it more cost-effectively than we are currently?

    of course the fact that we consider them as unworthy of taxpayer-provided health care is secondary given the realities but it’s also paradoxical because we seem to have no similar low opinions of others getting taxpayer-subsidized health care – geezers. What entitles geezers with 85K of income to subsidized health care but not the working poor?

    how in the world do you justify that?

    you’ve got folks working 40 hrs a week and they don’t deserve insurance but they can run up thousands of dollars at the ER … and at the same time, we have retired folks getting 85K in annual income getting guaranteed health care for 100.00 a month.

    a fair system would require the 85K folks to pay 200.00 a month and the 100.00 would be given to the working poor.

    but we are apparently so niggardly on these things that we resent even the most minimal help – for the working poor.. even though their ER use – we end up paying for.

    It’s like we’ve taken a stupid pill…..

  9. mbaldwin Avatar

    Larry, of course, provides the good sense here.

    Why not apply the same good sense that largely prevails in Jim Bacon’s entries when it comes to urban/suburban development, costs of sprawl and so forth, to the problem of America’s decaying social capital?

    We have ever rising wealth disparity and appalling child poverty getting worse each year, miserable health outcomes compared to other developed countries, and we won’t take the steps needed to arrest these trends by social investment? Contrast us to Canada today, which now exceeds us in per capita income, health, control of inflation, banking stability, you name it.

    Obama Care was a step in the right direction. Sure, we’d be better off with Canada’s single payer system, but that will never fly past our political myopia. Obama care is a second-best compromise (based, as we know, on Republican ideas.)

    What the Tea Party and its fellow-travelers fail to comprehend is that we have major social and economic problems leading America downhill. Rather than address them as the Economist magazine so persuasively argues we get knee-jerk focus on our debt, and consequent reluctance to invest in education, infrastructure to boost growth. To do that we must increase our tax revenue — higher taxes on the very rich — to levels we experienced in years past, along with tax reform and entitlement changes for long-run stability.

    The last thing we need is half-baked concerns about spending — like the Republican desire to reduce the farm bill not reducing big farm subsidies to the already rich but to reduce the food stamp program.

    We’re a nation that has lost its perspective. We prefer to eat our seed corn.

    In the mean time we have folks in Virginia — folks I know well — above Medicaid income levels who can’t afford insurance, because Virginia won’t expand the program.

    1. So why are so many people coming to the United States from around the world, many of them illegally, knowing they won’t like get any health insurance? Why aren’t they going to Canada or the many nations with single-payer, everybody’s covered plans?

  10. I’ll bet all of us have folks come to our homes to fix plumbing, furnace, or paint, etc.. work on our cars.. bring our newspapers, etc, etc… ring up our groceries… etc,

    that work hard to make a living and support their kids, pay their taxes, – and they are one step away from bankruptcy if they get sick or hurt.

    and we are essentially purposely oblivious to the fact that we have health care and they don’t ..

    how can any one of us honestly and conscientiously ignore this totally wrong and grotesquely unfair system?

    how can their children learn in school if their home life is one where mom/dad are one step away from financial disaster – through no fault of their own – just because they do not work for an employer who provides insurance or lucky enough to be 65 and get MediCare?

    we have become a pretty callous society when we can convince ourselves that this is “okay” – i.e. “not my fault”.

    and the irony is the right and it’s hard hearted approach is boosted, cheered on by the evangelicals… good god.

    1. Obama could have focused on reducing costs instead of expanding coverage. He did not. Just like no-fault car insurance slowed premium increases in many states, so too could no-fault medical malpractice and product liability have reduced health insurance premiums. But the plaintiff’s bar gives big bucks to the Democrats and tort reform was scuttled. Don’t worry, taxpayers can just dig deeper. Keeping the trial lawyers happy was more important to Obama than affordable health insurance.

      Many hospital chains have pricing power in metro areas. Breaking up hospital control over these markets would have resulted in lower premium prices. But Obama wanted big hospital support for the ACA, so he let them alone. But again, politics trumped affordable health care for Obama.

      Allowing people to purchase lower cost insurance coverage across state lines would have allowed people without coverage to purchase plans. But what did Obama do — mandate more coverage. Premiums are up.

  11. mbaldwin Avatar

    TMT, can you point to any credible study showing that tort reform would have any significance in addressing our rising health care costs? That it would actually reduce insurance costs in any way likely to broaden coverage?

  12. Yeah those poor plumbers and other tradesmen. I had one of those guys over about a month ago. We got to talking and he showed me some pictures and told me about his rental in Aruba. Where he plans to move in a few more years. Everyone, it seems, is making arrangements to get out of the country before the SHTF. The Republican antics allow us a little while longer to save some cash and apply for more entitlements before we join the other non-working beach bums in the Caribbean. The new America, where you make the dough and get out of Dodge before it gets moldy.

  13. re: ” I would support giving people who buy their own health insurance the same deduction from taxable income that businesses have. This change is certainly better than the monstrosity the ACA is turning out to be. Maybe we could close an unneeded military base or more to help fund this.”

    would you support them receiving 5K in credits like 30 million of us have?
    or allow people to get tax credits for money they spend on health care?

    “I do think we need to be extremely careful about creating more obligations to transfer income. ”

    I think we need to be extremely careful to NOT use our tax code to create winners and losers with the winners actually paying for the losers ER use. Do we care about that “transfer” of income especially if that would cost more than tax credits for routine medical care instead of high dollar ER medical care?

    “I am presuming the US will address illegal immigration with some form of amnesty. By making illegals legal, we will create a huge community eligible for taxpayer-provided benefits, which, in turn, will drag the economy even more. Moreover, the domestic supporters of the illegals will toss them to the lions once they achieve legal status. They will be undermined economically by more illegal immigrants. We are close to the tipping point where the safety net has become cement overshoes.”

    I don’t see a problem with denying illegals access to health care exchanges. Isn’t that the rule right now? you’d deny millions of American access on the premise that later on we “might” doing something with illegals? Jesus TMT.

    Why should a 65 year old earning 85K a year get guaranteed coverage for 100.00 a month and a plumber making 40K a year can’t get it period if he has a pre-existing condition? The plumber has a family, probably works 60 hours a week but if his kid gets a serious illness – either the kid dies or the plumber goes broke or both.
    how is this something we’d agree that there is nothing we can do about it?

    How do any of us who are govt employees, military or retired cannot get turned down for pre-existing conditions and the guy who rings up our groceries or fixes a flat on our car is crap out of luck?

    How do the rest of us who got our health care justify standing by and doing nothing for those whose shoes we could be just as easily walking in?

    this is wrong in my view and it’s wrong for us that are lucky to turn out back on those who are just like us but unlucky.

    If one’s “price” for giving the same healthcare deal to other Americans and not to “illegals” – fine but please let’s not use that as an excuse for not having some level of fairness for other Americans.

    Everytime we walk into a retail store, or have a tradesman come to your home or buy a pizza or get a car wash – you’re looking at ordinary hard-working people who are getting screwed on health care – and – we should care about that in my view.

    I always thought that sense of basic fairness was one of the things that made America and Americans special. I’m obviously wrong on that.

    It’s starting to look like “I’ve got mine, screw you”.

  14. Larry, we have somewhere between 11 and 12 million people who are illegally within this country. I suspect that, over time, a large number will achieve legal residence in the United States and that some will become eligible for citizenship later. Many of these individuals are already productive members of society. Some likely have health insurance. But many don’t. And many are poorly educated with low level of skills. They are unlikely ever to find employment with health insurance. If they are legalized, they will be eligible for some form of taxpayer-funded health insurance that will be comparable to, if not the same as, what is available to other lawful US residents. So unless Obama givens up on immigration reform, a decision to expand Medicaid is a decision to expand it to a state’s portion of millions of illegal immigrants.

    What is the cost of this? What is the impact on other state programs? It needs to be discussed now, not later.

    We need to look at these issues simultaneously. It’s like looking at the weather if both snow and high winds are forecasted. Such conditions are likely vastly different from a situation where it just snows without wind or a windy day without snow.

    1. TMT – do you think that illegals or illegals promoted to “legal” are going to get turned away from receiving health care when they need it if they don’t have insurance?

      do you think illegals are turned away right now when they show up sick or injured?

      I hear what you are saying but are you hearing me?

      do we turn people away from getting treated for illness and injury in this country?

  15. @TMT –

    This issue gets portrayed (wrongly in my view) as one where people right now do now cost the system money because they don’t get health care and the proposal is to spend more money to provide them with health care.

    as opposed to – many of these folks, no matter their immigration status, already seek and receive health care when they need it and we pay for it and we are now looking at more cost-effective ways to do it.

    the other aspect to this that is also in play is that if someone works at a job that does not offer employer-provided insurance or they work at multiple jobs and they actually can afford some level of insurance if they could get it – those people would buy insurance from the exchanges – as opposed to not paying at all and going to ERs for care.

    that would, instead of increasing our costs, reduce them – in two ways.

    first they start contributing some money as opposed to none

    and

    with insurance, they visit the doctor, get periodic screenings, etc and catch and treat – treatable diseases early on versus not going to the doctor and waiting until the disease is more advanced, then going to the ER – where they will not be turned away – and others – taxpayers and other insured will pay for heroic, expensive latter stage medical care for advanced diseases that could have been caught earlier and treated cheaper.

    Unless and until – we pass laws that says that – we will refuse treatment at the hospitals for “illegals” -we are already paying these costs – they’re somewhat hidden from view because they are embedded in other things.

    We do not refuse to give medical care to people in this country – no matter their immigration status – that’s the reality.

Leave a Reply