Medicaid Cuts Signal Runaway Train

by Janice Ellis

We need to shed the stereotypes and assess the real human and economic costs of these cuts.

Missouri’s proposed Medicaid cuts represent a classic example of public policy gone haywire. Raiding much-needed Medicaid programs to fund education represents neither good short-term nor long-term solutions for state government nor the people it is supposed to serve.

Do elected officials in Jefferson City really believe that poor children who do not have access to medical check-ups, dental care or vision care will be healthy enough to take advantage of a good education?

The Medicaid cuts, and the political environment in which we find ourselves, beg a broader question, the answer to which will loom large for many years to come. It gets to the heart of the role of government in this democratic republic. Is our government losing its way? If govern-ment does not exist to provide those services to citizens who cannot provide for themselves, then for what and for whom does it exit?

Just six months ago, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, issued a report, called “A Celebration of the Family,” in observance of the 10th anniversary of the International Year of the Family. The report, submitted to the nations of the world, quotes President Bush on the policy of the United States.

The report, in addition to referencing the Declaration of Independence and the purpose of government our forefathers had in mind, boldly asserts, “The family is a gift and the state should not deny or manipulate for its own purposes.”

It goes on to declare that the state must support all families that need assistance. “Therefore, the state should offer a variety of tangible social services to families in need. Such programs in the United States include cash assistance, food assistance, childcare services and healthcare to help ensure that all families are provided a minimum standard of living.”

The report includes a poignant quote from President Bush, “Single mothers do amazing work in difficult circumstances, succeeding at a job far harder than most of us can possibly imagine. They deserve our respect and they deserve our support.”

Where is the disconnect?

Policy makers have chosen the easy way out with this “slash and burn” approach to solve state budget woes. Whenever there is a revenue shortage, the tendency is to resort to the same old whipping boy, conjure the same racial and socioeconomic stereotypes, and croon the same old incendiary song: “We must get rid of the waste, fraud and abuse in our welfare programs, perpetrated by the lazy and able-bodied.”

While this may be a laudable goal, it begs several questions: Where is the analysis on how much waste, fraud and abuse exist? Who and where are the perpetrators? Have governmental bureaucrats been trained properly and have the necessary resources to identify perpetrators and get them out of the system? It seems that this would be a more cost-effective approach, rather than to move forward with massive across-the-board cuts that are bound to cost all of us more in the long run.

We need to shed the stereotypes and assess the real human and economic costs of these cuts. They include poor working families—more rural whites than urban blacks—going without needed preventive primary healthcare services, creating a cycle of unhealthy mothers having unhealthy babies who find it difficult to learn because they enter school with multiple disadvantages.

Who ultimately will pay when those same mothers and children land in the emergency rooms of hospitals with acute illnesses gone chronic? Is it good for a state’s economic well-being to perpetuate generations that will be un-able to get a decent education or maintain a job?

If we were in the halls of the Capitol, we no doubt would hear another familiar refrain, “There’s work—many great and well-paying jobs—for anyone who really wants to work.” Such distortions take a life of their own when the alternative is politically unpopular.

Policy-makers ignore those hard working moms and dads who are not offered healthcare services by their employers, who do not make enough money to pay for healthcare services on their own or cannot afford to pay for childcare services to keep them working.

Where is the plan and process that lawmakers are using to guide good decision-making that could yield positive short-term and long-term results for the state and its needy citizens? Complicated issues deserve and require a more thorough approach.

We have a legislative body that has become a runaway train. Let’s pray it doesn’t jump the tracks entirely.

Janice Ellis is president of Partnership for Children. She can be reached at 816 531-9211 or via e-mail at jsellis@kc.rr.com. The views expressed in this column are the writer’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Ingram’s Magazine.