Medicaid

You've heard of slash and burn, but how about slash and burden?

On Thursday, the House is expected to vote on a budget for Fiscal Year 2013 introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). The Ryan budget would devastate vital services for women and their families while giving trillions in new tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans and large corporations — on top of extending provisions of the Bush-era tax cuts that benefit only the very wealthy.

Let's make it clear that we will not stand for a budget that slashes programs for women and families and puts the burden of paying for tax breaks for millionaires and corporations on middle- and low-income Americans.

Tell your Representative to oppose the Ryan Budget. As your Members of Congress start budget negotiations, they need to know that their constituents expect them to protect programs for women and families — and to require the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.

What's wrong with Rep. Paul Ryan's Budget? For starters, it would:

• Repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Insurance companies could continue to charge women higher premiums than men, deny coverage to women due to preexisting condition, and refuse to cover maternity care.

The constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid poses a fundamental question to the Supreme Court: is a state government less able to exercise free choice in the face of the threat of loss of federal assistance than an impoverished pregnant woman whose health is threatened by the continuation of the pregnancy?

In 1976, Cora McRae needed to terminate her pregnancy for medical reasons, but she had very little money. She had health insurance through Medicaid, but under a provision of federal law known as the Hyde Amendment, federal Medicaid funds can not pay for abortions, including medically necessary abortions, though Medicaid covers other medically necessary expenses, including the costs of childbirth. McRae joined with other plaintiffs to challenge this law in court, arguing that by paying for childbirth expenses, but not for medically necessary abortion expenses, the government was unconstitutionally coercing her reproductive decisions and denying her right to choose to end her pregnancy. In 1980, the Supreme Court rejected McRae’s challenge to Medicaid’s failure to fund medically necessary abortions. “Although Congress has opted to subsidize medically necessary services generally, but not certain medically necessary abortions,” the Court wrote, “the fact remains that the Hyde Amendment leaves an indigent woman with at least the same range of choice in deciding whether to obtain a medically necessary abortion as she would have had if Congress had chosen to subsidize no health care costs at all.” In other words, refusing to provide Medicaid coverage for abortions did not represent unconstitutional coercion of a poor woman’s reproductive choices because, according to the Court, it was her poverty that constrained her choices, rather than any barriers the government had placed in her way. That she was poor and might be forced to make certain choices because of her poverty—like going through with a potentially dangerous pregnancy because she could not afford an abortion--wasn’t the government’s fault, the Court held. Read more »

Yesterday, 26 states filed a brief with the Supreme Court challenging the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. These states are asking the Supreme Court to make an unprecedented decision that could leave 10 million women without access to medical services and could put countless civil rights laws at risk.

The states claim that the Medicaid expansion is coercive because, given state budgetary constraints, states can’t really opt out of Medicaid so they are coerced into covering the expanded population and not cutting back on current eligibility rules. But states can opt out and at least two states – including the lead state on the Supreme Court challenge – have publically considered the possibility. If a state chooses to continue offering Medicaid and comply with the provisions of the Affordable Care Act because offering Medicaid is the best option to provide health care to the state residents, that isn’t coercion. That is proof that Medicaid works. Read more »

Last May, we told you about a recently signed law that would improve women’s access to family planning services in Maryland, and now the Family Planning Works Act has gone into effect!

The Family Planning Works Act expands the Medicaid family planning service program and is expected to give 33,000 low- and moderate-income women free access to a range of services, including birth control, STI testing, and cancer screenings. Read more »

The super-committee could not agree on a plan to cut the deficit by $1.2 to $1.5 trillion. Some in the media are calling it a failure – but we’re relieved that there were members who rejected plans that were unbalanced and unfair. Here are five reasons why:

1. The most immediate deficit the nation faces is the lack of jobs—and further spending cuts would have made that deficit worse.

   Yes, the nation faces a long-term fiscal imbalance. But the most urgent economic problem is unemployment. Since the “recovery” started in June 2009, the job market has made only modest gains— unemployment is still at 9 percent—and women have actually lost jobs, largely because cuts to public sector services have disproportionately eliminated jobs held by women. More spending cuts would have meant more job losses. In contrast, providing more help to struggling families boosts the economy, and thus can help reduce long-term deficits. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that extending emergency unemployment insurance and providing additional refundable tax credits in 2012 for lower and moderate-income people “would have the largest effects on output and employment per dollar of budgetary cost.” And growing the economy reduces the fiscal deficit as well as the jobs deficit; workers with jobs need less from safety net programs and pay more in taxes.

The House plans to vote tomorrow or Friday on H.J. Res. 2, a balanced budget constitutional amendment (BBA) sponsored by Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA).  The amendment is not new – it nearly came to the House floor over the summer, and similar amendments have been proposed many times over the years, especially in the 1990s.  But amending the Constitution to require the federal government to balance its budget every year was a terrible idea then, and it’s a terrible idea today. 

So terrible that a group of more than 1,000 economists, including 11 Nobel laureates, issued a joint statement in 1997 that said, “We condemn the proposed ‘balanced-budget’ amendment to the federal Constitution.  It is unsound and unnecessary…[and] mandates perverse actions in the fact of recessions.”

So terrible that five winners of the Nobel Prize for Economics issued a statement  in July opposing a BBA because of the negative effect it would have on an already troubled economy.

So terrible that Macroeconomic Advisers, a private economic forecasting firm, recently concluded that if a BBA had been ratified and were now being enforced for fiscal year 2012, “the effect on the economy would be catastrophic” and “recessions would be deeper and longer.”  According to the report, if the budget were balanced through spending cuts in 2012, about 15 million more people would lose their jobs and the unemployment rate would double (from 9 percent to a staggering 18 percent).  

Still not convinced?  Here’s a recap of my top five reasons why the House should reject the BBA:  Read more »

Do you live in Arizona, Massachusetts, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Washington? If so, call 1-866-251-4044 today to tell your senator on the super-committee to oppose cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in the super-committee.

If you’re a resident of one of the states above, we need your help. Senators Kyl, Kerry, Baucus, Portman, Toomey, and Murray are all members of the very powerful congressional super-committee charged with deciding how to cut the federal deficit by $1.5 trillion over ten years. Time is short — the committee faces a deadline of November 23 — and the stakes are high.

Various proposals before the super-committee would reduce Social Security benefits and cut Medicare and Medicaid by as much as $685 billion. Each of these vital programs provides income security and health care to millions of Americans — mostly women.

Your senator needs to hear from you now! Over the next couple of weeks, the handful of members on the super-committee will decide the fate of these and other vital programs. Read more »

Despite dreary weather yesterday afternoon, the rally in support of House Resolution 72 persevered outside the Capitol building. To catch you up, Representative John Conyer Jr.’s (D-MI) resolution opposes cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The rally was comprised of a multitudinous array of advocates and supporters, including representatives from NOW, AAUW and NWLC. The crowd was clearly passionate in their support of these vital programs. Signs boasted slogans ranging from, “Social Security: A Shared Commitment Across the Generations,” to “Hands Off My Medicare & Medicaid,” to “Women Depend on Medicare!” Additionally, various pieces of literature were circulated as to educate the participants further. Read more »

The deadline for the super-committee to produce its deficit-reduction plan is fast approaching, and cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are reportedly on the table.

Since large majorities of voters across party lines oppose cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits to reduce the deficit —including self-described “fiscally conservative” voters, as well as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents – we’re particularly concerned that policy makers might try to disguise painful benefit cuts as merely technical changes. So we’ve explained how changing the way the annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) is calculated for Social Security is not a more accurate way to measure inflation, but a “stealth” benefit cut that would especially hurt women. Read more »

Most of the work of the congressional super-committee (officially, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction) is going on behind closed doors – but reports are leaking out. And the word is that some members of the super-committee are targeting programs for low-income people for cuts. Today’s post focuses on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps) – but Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, Social Security, Medicare, and other vital programs are also threatened, and we’ll have more to say about them as the committee continues its work. Read more »