FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Hunger Games Politics

by CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

— John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address

Not all of the states’ reactions to the recent health care decision by the U.S. Supreme Court are an embarrassment.  Only a select few.  Some States, like Oregon, welcomed it.

In 2008  Oregon embarked on a program to provide health care to some of its residents who live in poverty.  It did not have enough money to cover all its impoverished residents so it set up a lottery system and folks who entered it got a chance to win health insurance coverage. Unlike lotteries at charity events, this lottery didn’t cost a thing to enter.  The only requirement to participate in the lottery was that the entrant be poor and not have health insurance.  The lottery was an instant success.

In 2008, 89,284 people entered the lottery and the lucky winners received that which those who live in other wealthy, industrialized nations get without entering a lottery-health insurance.   Once the lottery had taken place its effects on those won was studied to determine the costs and benefits of the coverage.  The study disclosed that 25 per cent of the winners were less likely to be burdened by unpaid medical bills and 40% per cent less likely to find that paying medical bills forced them to skip paying other significant obligations. Those who won were more likely to have a family doctor they visited regularly and enjoyed better overall health than those who did not have insurance.

Notwithstanding the success of the lottery many residents remained uninsured and Oregon is happy to abandon the lottery in favor of having all its residents obtain insurance. Bruce Goldberg, the Oregon Health Authority director, is not worried about the additional cost to the state.  He said the Supreme Court decision is “very good news for the 600,000 Oregonians who do not have health care coverage. . . . Under the Affordable Care Act, the health care lottery for low-income Oregonians goes away and everyone wins.  That is good for them, good for their families, and good for Oregon.  They will have better health care and more financial security. . . .” If governors of some of the other states cared about the health of their citizens they would study the results of the lottery and might even decide to permit their Medicaid rolls to expand. They haven’t and they don’t.

A spokesman for South Carolina’s Gov. Nikki R. Haley, said:  “We’re not going to shove more South Carolinians [600,000 poor people without insurance] into a broken system that further ties our hands when we know the best way to find South Carolina solutions . . . is through the flexibility that block grants provide.”  Since there are no block grants available, if South Carolina fails to take advantage of the ability to expand eligibility, 600,000 poor South Carolinians will remain uninsured.

Governor David Heineman of Nebraska explains his opposition to  expanding Medicaid eligibility explaining that if it is expanded it will affect state aid to education even though the federal government will pay all the cost of the increased costs of expanding Medicaid until 2017 and by  gradually decreasing amounts  until 2020 when states will have to assume 10% of the cost with the federal government paying the remaining 90%.  Another Governor who is unambiguous in his response is Florida’s governor, Rick Scott.

Governor Scott has said that: “Florida will opt out of spending approximately $1.89 billion more taxpayer dollars required to implement a massive entitlement expansion of the Medicaid program.”  Explaining his decision the governor said:  “Floridians are interested in jobs and economic growth, a quality education for their children and keeping the cost of living low.  Neither of these provisions (Medicaid expansion and insurance exchanges) will achieve those goals, and since Florida is legally allowed to opt out, that’s the right decision for our citizens.” Twenty percent of Florida’s residents lack health insurance.  Mr. Scott is not among them.  The state provides health insurance for him. If Florida took advantage of the expansion 1 million residents would get coverage.

Health insurance seems like a luxury only to those who have it, people like Governors Haley,  Heineman and Scott.  Since they  refuse to take advantage of Medicaid expansion the law permits and largely funds, to help their impoverished citizens, perhaps they would consider starting a lottery.  Oregon did cover it in an impartial manner as many people as limited funds would permit.  The recalcitrant governors could do it to give the impression that they were doing something positive for their poor citizens even though they were doing far less than the law permits.  Watching to see who won the lottery and, therefore, obtained health insurance, could be a source of amusement for observers who already have insurance and would give the uninsured but hopeful poor a distraction to take their minds of the other hardships poverty forces them to endure. Kind of like Hunger Games.

Christopher Brauchli is an attorney living in Boulder, Colorado. He can be emailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu

 

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

March 22, 2017
Paul Street
Russiagate and the Democratic Party are for Chumps
Russell Mokhiber
Single-Payer, the Progressive Caucus and the Cuban Revolution
Gavin Lewis
McCarthyite Anti-Semitism Smears and Racism at the Guardian/Observer
Kathy Kelly
Reality and the U.S.-Made Famine in Yemen
Kim C. Domenico
Ending Our Secret Alliance with Victimhood: Toward an Adult Politics
L. Ali Khan
Profiling Islamophobes
Calvin Priest
May Day: Seattle Educators Moving Closer to Strike
David Swanson
Jimmy Breslin on How to Impeach Trump
Dave Lindorff
There Won’t Be Another Jimmy Breslin
Jonathan Latham
The Meaning of Life
Robert Fisk
Martin McGuinness: From “Super-Terrorist” to Super Statesman
Steve Horn
Architect of Federal Fracking Loophole May Head Trump Environmental Council
Binoy Kampmark
Grief, Loss and Losing a Father
Jim Tull
Will the Poor Always Be With Us?
Jesse Jackson
Trump’s “March Massacre” Budget
Joe Emersberger
Rafael Correa and the Future of Ecuador: a Response to James McEnteer
March 21, 2017
Reshmi Dutt-Ballerstadt
On Being the “Right Kind of Brown”
Kenneth Surin
God, Guns, Gays, Gummint: the Career of Rep. Bad Bob Goodlatte
David Rosen
Popular Insurgencies: Reshaping the Political Landscape
Ryan LaMothe
The Totalitarian Strain in American Democracy
Eric Sommer
The House Intelligence Committee: Evidence Not Required
Mike Hastie
My Lai Massacre, 49 Years Later
James McEnteer
An Era Ends in Ecuador: Forward or Back?
Evan Jones
Beyond the Pale
Stansfield Smith
First Two Months in Power: Hitler vs. Trump
Dulce Morales
A Movement for ‘Sanctuary Campuses’ Takes Shape
Pepe Escobar
Could Great Wall of Iron become New Silk Roadblock?
Olivia Alperstein
Trump Could Start a Nuclear War, Right Now
David Macaray
Norwegians Are the Happiest People on Earth
March 20, 2017
Michael Schwalbe
Tears of Solidarity
Patrick Cockburn
Brexit, Nationalism and the Damage Done
Peter Stone Brown
Chuck Berry: the First Poet of Rock and Roll
Paul J. Ramsey
What Trump’s Travel Ban Reveals About His Long-Term Educational Policy
Norman Pollack
Two Nations: Skid Rows vs. Mar-a-Lago
Michael Brenner
The Great Game: Power Politics or Free Play?
Sam Gordon
Falling Rate of Profit, What about Some Alienation?
Jack Random
Sidetracked: Trump Diaries, Week 8
Julian Vigo
The Limits of Citizenship
James Graham
French Elections: a Guide for the Perplexed
Jeff Mackler
The Extraordinary Lynne Stewart
Lee Ballinger
Chuck Berry: “Up in the Morning and Off to School!”
Binoy Kampmark
Romancing Coal: The Adani Obsession
Nyla Ali Khan
Cultural Syncretism in Kashmir
Chad Nelson
The Politics of Animal Liberation: I Can’t Quit You Gary Francione
Weekend Edition
March 17, 2017
Friday - Sunday
John Reynolds
Israel and the A-Word
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail