From the office of Congressman Andy Harris:
Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Andy Harris, M.D., introduced legislation that would eliminate most of next year’s sequester by slightly increasing the state contribution to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid expansion. Under this proposed legislation, the state match for newly eligible individuals under the ACA’s Medicaid program would increase by 10 percentage points for the first ten years of the program. The savings would be applied against next year’s sequestration with the first $20 billion in savings directed to defense, and remaining savings split evenly between defense and non-defense accounts.
“With the concerns both parties have expressed over the sequester, I am proposing a common sense way to offset the cuts,” said Harris. “As the Budget Committees are continuing negotiations, I hope they will consider this solution.”
Many Members are concerned about the across-the-board nature of sequestration, which fails to prioritize government spending. Congressman Harris supports targeted spending reductions that meet the spending caps and savings required under the Budget Control Act. Under current spending rates, defense will be subjected to an additional $20 billion in sequestration in 2014. This bill would offset the looming defense cuts and split additional funds between defense and non-defense spending. Under the President’s health law, state contributions to the Medicaid expansion are zero percent for the first three years and increase gradually to a ten percent match by years seven to ten.
sacred cow of defense, is it really worth the additional money that this would require?
Now here’s an idea I can get behind in principle, but it’s in the execution where Harris fails.
We should be shrinking out Federal govt and passing services, administration, and costs over to our State and county governments where people have a more direct influence on the use and abuse of their taxes to provide public services. What this also means, generally, is that our local taxes will have to increase eventually to handle these new burdens, and as the federal debt becomes more manageable, our federal tax should go down. This is how things should go. Of course, I have absolutely no faith that we could pull this off correctly. We can’t even run a flippin website correctly.
But to prioritize defense spending over non-defense spending is just more of the same folly, corporate welfare. Instead of prime rib with food stamps it’s fighter planes we don’t need with tax credits.
I’m not sure what the answer is but it seems that by expanding Medicaid, we are just creating a larger society of dependent, service-saavy people who have more incentive to collect benefits than go out and get a job. Medicaid was designed for individuals truly in poverty and those with disabilities. I know folks that have bonefide disabilities who are Medicaid-eligible and truly need and deserve the safety-net they have.
Employment status will not effect the expansion of Medicaid in fact it might encourage people to work more. It is more of a voucher program!
Cdev –
Tell me how a government Medicaid program encourages people on the dole to get jobs and become self-sufficiently independent of government.
Cause I’m saying you’re progressively full of it.
Never said it will get them off the dole as you say but if I can work more and still be eligible for the subsidy I might actually work more!
@Cdev
The attractive and captivating aggregating poverty benefits causes more people to be stuck in a position of government subsidized dependency.
There are so many examples of conservatives with a superior sense of entitlement using federal and state assistance to supplement their lifestyle while furiously opposing others they perceive as getting an undeserved handout that your comment is at the very least laughable if not totally hypocritical.
Because you know there are many more conservatives on the dole than poor people?
Because no liberal/progressives ever use government programs?
Because Detroit is an example of a great liberal/progressive economic success because of the fearless democrats who never took a dime from government?
Because your utopian statism economic ideology has been a proven result in economies around the world?
Because I think I got it now!
Medicaid is income-based and more folks can be made eligible by upping the threshold. That’s fine for people who really do need it and have no other way to support themselves due to disability. Abled-bodied people should work for a living instead of expecting everything to be handed to them, including free housing, heat assistance, free food, medical care as well as free phones. When does it stop?
Concerned Citizen –
Really?
You want the dependent class to be responsible & accountable. And yet you’re on another thread you expect government to restrict the legal property rights of others?
Are you kind of a hypocrite?
@ concerned citizen – Never said that government should restrict anything. Can you read or is it typical for you to be so ignorant?
Concerned Citizen –
You don’t want government to restrict Walmart?
So you want government to approve Walmart’s new development.
I got it!