MaineCare funding has been a lightning rod in current state budget discussions, causing sparks to fly between two recent BDN Op-Ed writers — Reps. Mark Eves, D-North Berwick, and Deborah Sanderson, R-Chelsea. In her March 14 Op-Ed, Rep. Sanderson constructed a “facts versus fiction” argument and I’d like to continue in that vein, countering some of what she claims are facts.
Rep. Sanderson: “Huge cost overruns” in MaineCare are due to “mushrooming growth” in covered populations.
Here are the facts: Let’s look at Department of Health and Human Services’ own posted figures on the Web, going back to 2006. Enrollment climbed a modest 2 percent per year during this period, a time when we experienced one of the deepest recessions in our lifetime; when the unemployment rate jumped up 75 percent, and thousands in Maine lost their jobs and health insurance.
But despite this growth, the total funding for the MaineCare program during this period was largely flat. In the six years between 2006 and 2011, MaineCare costs increased 8.9 percent at a time when medical care inflation “mushroomed” at double that rate.
Rep. Sanderson: Reducing enrollment in MaineCare will solve the program’s current fiscal problems.
Here are the facts: If one casts an actuarial eye toward MaineCare data, it’s hard to miss the striking fact that 5 percent of those covered account for 55 percent of MaineCare costs. This 5 percent is made up of the classic “required” populations covered by MaineCare — the elderly and disabled.
We still will need to pay for these high-cost, complicated patients even if other groups are eliminated through cuts. There is no solution in the governor’s plan for one of the most critical problems faced by the MaineCare program.
This point is not lost on other states — 37 of them have aggressive cost containment and care management programs in place. Maine is not one of them. The LePage administration scrapped a contract for a vigorous care management program dealing with several thousand MaineCare members for a much more limited voluntary program among hospitals to reduce emergency room use (working with about 750 patients). Promising efforts to contain costs have been reduced to a trickle.
Rep. Sanderson: MaineCare’s financial problems did not start “when Gov. LePage took office.”
Here are the facts: I agree. Nor did they begin with Democrats. The habit of “simply not paying hospitals for MaineCare services rendered” began in the Republican administration of Gov. John McKernan and continued in the independent administration of Gov. Angus King’s administration. It wasn’t until Democrat John Baldacci’s administration when payments finally started to flow to hospitals for these back debts.
Rep. Sanderson: To pay for those problems, Democrats sank “magic stimulus money … meant for shovel ready projects” into paying off MaineCare.
Here are the facts: This accusation has surfaced periodically in this legislative session, implying a dishonest use of the stimulus funds. In fact, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or ARRA, included funds specifically designated only for use by state Medicaid programs, recognizing that in a recession, there is increased demand for Medicaid coverage at a time when states have fewer revenues to pay for it. There was no robbing of “shovel ready” funds. These dollars were used solely for their intended purpose.
Rep. Sanderson: MaineCare is simply “a welfare program.”
Here are the facts: MaineCare is a public health insurance program for the populations — elderly, disabled, mentally ill and poor — that the private insurance sector cannot or will not cover.
Moreover, MaineCare ought to be managed professionally, more like the private insurance sector, with experienced staff trained in such areas as insurance principles, actuarial science, claims management, information systems and cost containment strategies. Instead, we crank down on MaineCare staffing levels, nickel and dime the salaries of the specialists and technicians we need and “encourage” experienced staff to retire early. Why then are we surprised when we have computer system meltdowns (as in the Baldacci era) or major glitches in eligibility systems (as in the LePage era)?
When it comes to something as important as health care for people who are vulnerable and poor, it is important to get our facts right. It is also important that we find ways to talk with each other across whatever side of the aisles we sit to solve these problems together in order to best manage this vital health care resource.
Lisa Miller was a member of the Appropriations Committee in the 124th Legislature. She is a candidate for House District 52 (Chelsea, Somerville, Whitefield, part of Jefferson, Washington and Hibberts Gore).
Lisa..Very impressive and I am very grateful to you for this analysis…
nothing speaks as clearly and convincingly as the truth.
Except for the fact that most of the people who find Mainecare so objectionable like to put their hands over their ears and proclaim, loudly, “I can’t hear you! I can’t hear you! Whoo-oooo-ooo-ooh! Cut my taxes! Cut my taxes! Welfare! Welfare!”
Yes you are absolutely right Pat.
Everyone is happy to see these cuts until it touches their own lives.
Until their mother or father needs care at home or in a nursing home and they end up losing their home and running through all their resources or their daughter gives birth to a Downe Syndrome baby and the family is completely overwhelmed by the amout of care and cost of care required.
Why should taxpayers pay for someone’s care when that person owns a home? Why shouldn’t that person have their home taken by the government in exchange for the medical care they require later in life? That person should have planned better – gotten an education, a good job, and saved for retirement and had their own insurance. If they didn’t, the fallout shouldn’t be placed on the shoulders of taxpayers.
And, people shouldn’t have children unless they have a good job and medical insurance to support those children.
Howdy, you are talking about ” personal responsibility” Something liberals hate with a passion. Miller is one of these, as evidenced by her long voting record in the House. A record, that every voter in district 52 will know as the summer goes on.
What a stereotypical judgement that is based on fact-less conservative propaganda.
You cannot force personal responsibly on someone who refuses to accept it. So for those of us who are responsible will eventually be faced with a choice. Help those who fail or watch them die. I am not comfortable watching anyone die when they could be helped.
You can if that is the only option they have.
Ok! I am all for that. Single payer health care. If you don’t have an employer option or choose not to buy your own insurance then take it out in a form of a tax your entire life while your healthy… Oh wait that is called medicare and already exists. We could just extend that model to everyone…
Really? Then you can pay for it, I don’t want to.
Sorry to burst into your reality bubble but the Affordable Care Act is a personal responsibility law. You claim liberals hate personal accountability and then they pass a law that is based 100% on this idea and “conservatives” run away from it.
I would bet 99% of the other things you know about liberals are wrong too.
Why should we pay for someone else’s healthcare? Because we should take care of each other, as human beings, as fellow citizens of this country, we should care about the livilyhoods of our neighbors, because it effects how our neighborhoods function. If your house burns down, you lose everything you own and are hospitalized for severe burns and are unable to work; you should be able to focus on recovery and know that your neighbors are looking out for you. Same should be said for our vulnerable populations, because you, too, may one day need to depend on the generosity of others. What comes around goes around.
If someone is truly in need (i.e. they have never been able to hold down a job, mentally impaired, etc.), yes, we should all do our part. However, if the person failed to plan for their future, it’s their or their family’s responsibility to take care of them – not the rest of us.
And what do you do if someone has been “personally responsible” their entire life, but do to some catastrophic event, has lost everything? Are they just supposed to die because “didn’t plan ahead”? Get real!!
Being personally responsible means getting an education, getting a good job, and working hard to keep that job. It also means saving money for a possible “catastrophe” instead of blowing it. And, it means having insurance. So, yes, if someone has “lost everything”, they didn’t plan ahead and they don’t deserve to ask others (taypayers) to foot the bill for their failures.
Howdy,
Do any of the Republican candidates for Snowe’s seat or any legislator that you know of support this view. Is there more information at their websites? I’d like to take a look.
Thanks
Boy, what fairy tale land do you live in? Are all your clouds there cotton candy?
If people didn’t have children until they could afford them, no one would have any children. Ridiculous statement. I suppose in your syrup rivered world, no one has a good job and money, has a child or two, then lose a job. In your carbonated oceaned world no one buys insurance and no one thinks ahead enough to have money for their end of life care. Only, here’s the rub, you can do that, and still run out of money. BTW, for cases such as this, Mainecare has a provision of Estate Recovery. You should look into it.
Really? I did. I waited until I was 26 to get married, and made sure I could afford kids. Like Samantha here, personal responsibility are hateful words in your eyes. Too bad, because personal responsibility is going to be popular again,very soon.
I have no issues with personal responsibilies. But again, the comment is disengenous. A single child costs over $250K to raise from birth to adulthood. The costs can be staggering. My wife and I make a good living, but we still are one pay check away from not being able to “afford” a child. But again, it is the rosey world of conservatives can do no wrong and liberals can do no right that is at the heart of your and Howdy’s comments. But you don’t “hate”, which is actually funny. I often wish that people such as yourself could watch your brethern use these services, you all hate so much.
Oh sure, the old liberal “hate” angle. If somebody believes in personal responsibility and sane government spending and living within its means, you are a “hater”. Pretty lame.
>>>>
What is lame is that you talk a good game of “hate” then bellyahce about being called on it. That is Lame, with a captial L.
The REALITY is that numerous people have children just so they can get more welfare, a bigger free apartment, etc. And, yes, people should be responsible and NOT expect others to pick up the pieces of the mess they’ve made of their lives. Just because people make mistakes doesn’t mean the rest of us should have to pay for them.
The other REALITY is that good, hard working people lose their jobs, get sick and need help. But let’s not talk about those people. Let’s just let you decide who needs help.
Anway, when you make a “mistake” such as those you are speaking against, I can assume we will all be able to walk by your family in the cardboard box you will move them to? Disingenuous, as I said before.
Apparently too much tea can have the same result as LSD
yup, that exta $81 a month people get per child after the first child really buys a lot of luxury items. And the apartment myth you suggest is laughable too. Subsidized housing has limits and rules about those things. You are fortunate because it is clear to me you have never needed to acces the safety net…..yet.
Yes, that’s an extra $81 they get for drug money after they dump the kid at Grandma’s house. And, yes, I have been in a very bad place. Per my note above – I was in a very bad place in life at one time. Instead of asking for
help (for myself AND my children), I pulled myself up by my bootstraps and fixed the problem myself. I
never asked anybody for help, nor did I accept any help from anybody
else, including the government, even when I didn’t have enough food to
eat. Other people should do the same instead of asking for handouts from
taxpayers (i.e. government assistance).
RE: $81 more for drug money.
You will be elated to know that Fla’s welfare people are testing 6% under the national average of every day drug users. The National average for drug use is at 8%, the testing in Fla, is 2%. So pop goes, yet another, myth.
We need janitors. We need people to sell us stuff at Wal-Mart. We need people to restock the shelves at Hannaford. Do you think those people own their own homes?
Do you think they even make enough to save?
You think because they provide a crucial service to society but are not in a “good” job they should not be allowed to have children?
Are you going to force them onto birth control until they get a better job?
If we were all moral people we would have to pay in one way or another. Either through taxes and social welfare programs or more expensive food, cloths ect. Society takes all types and your refusing to acknowledged humanity for the types you don’t seem to think about.
Tom,
they sure as hell aren’t going to force anyone onto birth control, or hadn’t you heard? That is a non-starter for Conservatives.
I know ;) Sounds a bit hypocritical don’t you think?
Under your philosophy, you think that people who failed to get an education and a good job somehow deserve public assistance. So, you want to reward them for their poor planning, careless spending and laziness by giving them free food, housing and medical care? Funny!
Picture yourself in a boat on a river
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes
Must be nice to live in your fairy tale world.
Funny you should say that. You must not be aware that there are asset tests for MaineCare. If you own real estate that can cost you eligibility. There are cost recovery mechanisms in MaineCare too. In some cases, when a recipient dies, a claim on their estate is made by the state to recover the monies spent by the program on the recipients behalf. See, there is a lot more to the picture than your local paper usually prints.
As for your last comment, “people shouldn’t” statements are pretty useless. People do…… Often, one has insurance when they have a child and lose it later due to job loss or change. Further, many hard working people are not provided insurance by their employers. This is a growing trend. It is also one reason why the working poor do not have the same upward mobility this country once was known for. If you are a hard working person without coverage, you are one illness away from financial ruin. Health insurance is really bankruptcy insurance since anyone can show up and get care.
If you like accountability you should support the Affordable Care Act, as this makes everyone pay for their coverage, like medicare forces us to pay for our health coverage when we are seniors. This law eliminates the free-rider problem. We as a nation already spend enough for everyone to get care, why not make everybody have to pay for it!
Don’t confuse him with facts. The fact that the Estate Recovery progam exists, doesn’t exactly help his “cause”.
How do you explain those who have plenty of money, but go to a lawyer and have all their assets, including their home, put in someone else’s name or a trust so the the state will pay for their nursing home care. It happens so often, it should make your blood boil. Let’s stop that before we take someone’s home when that’s all they have.
The problem is that the folks who have the strongest views about Mainecare abuse (however misguided) are the least likely to read this article. Which is, in part, why they are so grossly misinformed in the first place. To them, you will come across as one of those ‘educated people’.
You’re bad. LOL
Great story and so true!!! Thank you.
From years of watching the Maine legislature I’ve detected a common thread running through Republican action. They harm the less fortunate or help the more powerful or both. And they will make up any excuse to do so, it seems.
I don’t understand the thinking that feeds such a philosophy. But if one watches what they do, instead of listening to what they say, the conclusion is unavoidable.
Not true. Republicans care about the less fortunate, when the less fortunate are truly helpless in a situation. What Republicans don’t agree with is giving a free ride to people who are perfectly capable of working but who choose not to do so because the Democrats want to pay them to sit at home on their backsides in exchange for votes.
Please point to a policy that backs up your statement? What was the last legislation sponsored by and voted for by republicans with the express goal of “looking out” for the “truly less fortunate?”
hmm, 9hours. Do you hear that? It’s the sound of crickets.
I’m not just talking about “welfare” laws.
On worker’s compensation laws, Republicans always seem to want to reduce injured worker benefits and reduce company liability.
In voting laws, Republicans always seem to want to make it more difficult for the average or less fortunate to vote.
In public utilities law, Republicans always seem to favor the power companies against the small ratepayers.
In tax law, Republicans always seem to want to shift the tax burden away from the wealthy and onto the less wealthy.
In consumer protection law, the Republicans always seem to favor the corporations and not the consumers.
The list goes on and on…
Did you ever consider that there are people who are able to work only because they have MaineCare to help with medical expenses? MaineCare, as the article states, is health insurance pure and simple. When you are working a low wage job with no benefits, where are you supposed to get the money for private health insurance? You are lucky to be able to afford a roof over your head and food on the table. I’m glad I’m not your neighbor because you are not very neighborly!!
Repeat – If that person had gotten a better education, they wouldn’t be earning minimum wage. I was in a very bad place in life at one time. Instead of asking for help, I pulled myself up by my bootstraps and fixed the problem myself. I never asked anybody for help, nor did I accept any help from anybody else, including the government, even when I didn’t have enough food to eat. Other people should do the same instead of asking for handouts from taxpayers (i.e. government assistance).
I gues you’re just perfect and the rest of us are human!!!
My god, is that cross heavy? How do you type with your arms outstretched?
Give me a break, huh? I can point to many, many people with degree’s out there, begging for work. Their education isn’t helping them now.
Had they saved for a rainy day instead of buying big cars and other adult toys, they wouldn’t be in such a mess. Again, asking others for help when you’ve failed to prepare for life’s surprises is irresponsible.
Obviously, there is no talking to you. You have your mind made up, and justify it with silly antectotal information that you choose to subscribe to. Enjoy your limited view of humanity.
So it is a welfare program and Obamas stimulus plan was designed to spend billions on liberal social benefit programs. The word stimulous was deliberately used in a misleading way.
We can all agree on these points no matter how you want to spin them.
You do your best to keep your children healthy, but sickness and accidents are a part of life. Getting health insurance for your children gives you peace of mind knowing they have health coverage when they need it. Search one the web “Penny Health” for kids they are the best.
I dont like seeing the elderly or disabled people going without the proper care that they need and deserve, but ya gotta admit with this generation, that there is a huge amount of abuse of the welfare systems in Maine. Until we start buying and demanding made in USA products its just going to get worse. Washington county Maine , the poorest in Maine has had chances at good paying jobs that got voted out or put down by FERC its all our own fault.
Or. Mainecare costs (and Medicaid costs around the country) could be costing more for two very simple reasons. 1) uncompensated care, which is always on the rise, makes prices for all things higher. 2) Baby Boomers are getting older every day, and there is no way around the fact that there are more people turning 65 every day, than at any other time since Social Security (Medicare) started.
Let see the Bangor Democratic News fails to mention at all that you are a Democratic candidate. You continue the myth that its all former administrations fault how we got where we are. You fail to remember that the Democratic Party controlled the legislature all those years. It is hard to lay the blame elsewhere when from a headline in today’s paper shows close scrutiny of the budget by legislators. If you are in control then you need to accept the responsibility. Finally you fail to include a list of taxes that you would raise to balance the revenue with the spending, at current rates.
You didn’t know she was a democrat? My god, who did you ever find this information out on your own?
Unfortunately, this revelation will have little effect on public opinion of the MaineCare system. Facts find very little room in contemporary politics.
As it has been said, I am all for helping the needy, but it seems to liberals, needy is a loose term. Not wanting to work does not qualify you as needy. Lazy yes, needy no.
There are many people out there with disease, mental illness etc. There are also people that just have kids to keep the checks coming from those of us who pay taxes. Yes, I have a problem with the latter.
Having kids is no excuse to not work. I am a single father with full custody of my son, I receive no child support (in a reverse situation id be in jail). Yet I work, well over 40 hours a week. I, Me, and only me, take care of my son. I am exhausted most of the time, but I do what I need to do. The point being, I am not very receptive to the “I cant” mentality.
I lose about 33% of my money to taxes to pay for the people who genuinely cant, I am ok with that. However a lot of that 33% also goes to people who wont. That is what makes me angry
Re “a lot of that 33% also goes to people who wont”
Where do we find the data showing the percentage of the 33% that goes to people you believe believe undeserving?
True, I worded it incorrectly, I should have said some. But as I previously stated. Those that dont work because they dont want to, I pay too much for, I dont care how little it is.
My list of undeserving is actually smaller than the deserving. Those that can work and dont, and the methadone clinic
There again you don’t want your tax dollars going to the Methadone clinic, but the only other alternative is jail. Which one do you believe would cost the taxpayer the most…..the clinic or the prison system ? It’s going to cost you either way, you pick !
Well, it shouldnt be hard to realize we pay for BOTH. Its not a pick or choose scenario. Many of the people that go to the clinic spend equal time at each. Id rather pay for the one that hopefully teaches them a lesson, and not hand them out another drug to be addicted to. So yes, I would rather pay for jail, than methadone and jail.
Jail ! Wow ! The annual cost per person would be about one hundred times as much as a methadone clinic….not to mention the millions of dollars that would be needed to build the new jails that would be needed to house our newfound prison population. And don’t forget if they are in jail the state would be responsible for their healthcare. Give it some more thought. On the bright side I guess that it would create some much needed new jobs working for the state though !
I think you missed the point. Paying for jail is better than paying for the clinic AND jail.
We can argue back and forth all day. I remember thinking when the clinic came here, that it would cause more problems than it fixed. I would LOVE to see the crime stats related to drugs in the bangor area, pre clinic to now. Prior to the clinic I never heard of anyone in maine strung out on heroin. The point being, because of the clinic, I probably pay more than I used to for the jails.
With that said, no, I dont want my tax dollars to contribute to a huge spike in drug related crime
There will always be some sure that abuse the clinic, but the vast majority I believe are their trying to end their dependency on street drugs, and stay out of jail. Maybe a more rigorous testing policy for opiate use (that could be mandated by the State) would help. The State of Maine has few clinics compared to other the other New Englang States, this tends to herd all the addicts into one location, compounding the problem.
Thats where we disagree. I think the abuse is more common than not. Methadone, for many, is something to tide them over until they can get something else. I have seen two people genuinly try to recover, I can honestly say I know at least 5 times that amount that abuse it.
Its been nice talking to you civily, we should do it more often lol
Sounds like you believe that all your taxes are spent on welfare. Hate to tell you but only a fraction of the 33% you claim you pay in taxes is spent on welfare ! The majority of your tax dollars are spent running the Government, (gotta pay LePage ya know) military, schools, roads, etc.etc.
True, I should not have worded it that way. SOME of my taxes go to welfare, and if one out of 5 abuses it (random number, not stating as fact) its one out of 5 more than I care to pay for. I dont care if its .00001 percent of my 33%, its too much to pay for people who have no interest in making their own way.
Yes I know I gotta pay lepage, I had to pay baldy too, and neither of them deserve it
Some of your money might be paying for the” lazy” as you call them. but do you have any other solutions ? Incarceration ? Institutionalization ? Psychiatric treatments ? Debtors prisons ? How much tax money do you think the alternatives would cost us, the taxpayers ? Much more than we are paying now I would bet .
MANDATORY DRUG TESTING TO RECIEVE BENEFITS!!!!!!!!!!!! That will weed alot of people off right there… I have to pass random drug tests to make an income, why shouldn’t people recieving benefits???
What do you propose we do with the people who fail the drugs tests ? Jail ? Run them outta State ? Debtors prison ? What would be your solution that would not cost us even more of the tax payers dollars ?
Thats up to them. Life is all about choices, choose to do drugs, or choose to eat.
When did personal responsibility become a bad thing?
Personal responsibility isn’t a bad thing and life is about choices, but when people choose drugs over eating….. we the taxpayer end up paying for their choices anyway….. either in jail or in the hospital…. we even pay for the coroner and the burial if needed ! I’m not sure what the solution is ?
Me either, but as much as I hate to say it, at least per person, I will only pay the coroner and burial once.
Yes, start with drug testing and go from there. I get tested randomly for my job, and mine is a job. I would like to see the capable of working, be put on state jobs. Anyone can rake leaves at a state park, and train to be a flagger. There are temp labor places around etc. Encourage them to want to better themselves rather than to encourage them to do nothing. I find it shocking you would see that as a bad thing
Shocking ?….. And who said that it was a bad thing ?…… But do you think that you could get Republicans, Democrats, and the Tea Party to agree to such a program as the one you just proposed ? And if you could get them all to agree, would you be risking taking much needed jobs away from deserving people who are not on welfare ?
I agree with that point, and have thought about it alot myself. I dont want to see people losing jobs over it, but I just figured theres always something they could do. Even picking up trash on sides of the street would be some kind of motivation. Most places would take “free” labor, even if they arent needed, they would find something for them to do.
As with getting dems and repubs to agree on anything like that? They are a bunch of school children that probably cant agree that water is wet
Too many lobbyists in Augusta and Washington DC. !
Indeed. Glad to see you and I could finally find common ground
So because of that 0.00001% that goes to abuse your willing to punish the people that do deserve help?
Yes, yes I am. Deserving of help is a loose term anyway. I like to think as a non drug abuser, I “deserve” my hard earned money, more than the drug abuser does.
I think as a hard worker, I deserve my money more than someone who sits on his @ss all day.
None of that is the point though. Heres a thought. Punish the people who abuse it! Cut them off. Take the people using EBT to buy water, dump it, and use the returns to get booze. Technically they didnt break any rules, but personally, instead of continueing to supply them with ebt, give it to someone who would appreciate it
I think you confuse wanting to not pay for the abuse as wanting to end welfare, which is not the case and I have said before. I have no wish at all to take the benefits from the truely needy, but as I have also stated before, not wanting to get a job, does not qualify a person as needy
Millions of hard working Americans should have planed ahead at the voting booth before the Republicans drove the economy off the cliff- FACT
We live on planet jupiter. FACT.
Typing the word fact after it, doesnt make it true.
If Ms. Miller wishes to counter Ms. Sanderson’s op-ed, she needs to address what that op-ed stated. Ms. Sanderson addresses the costs of MaineCare since 2000, not 2006. Why is it Democrats want to just talk about the years 2006 and up? What happened to MaineCare in those relatively flush years?
In addition, Ms. Sanderson does mention the LePage administration’s attempt to address cost containment.
I could go on, but I suggest people re-read Ms. Sanderson’s piece on March 14th and then ask themselves just what the point of Ms. Miller’s op-ed is.
Ms. Miller, it would help your argument if you provided links to support your so-called facts. Just calling something a fact does not make it so. Fact: reducing enrollment in Mainecare will reduce the burden on taxpayers.
The industry trade group, AHIP (America’s Health Insurance Plans — sounds so “patriotic” doesn’t it?) has claimed a profit margin of 4.4%, or one penny of every dollar spent on health care in this country. Even if this figure was not misleading, (return on equity is a rather robust 16.1%) that penny would be worth $347 billion between 2009 and 2019!
Profits have been Wall Street’s dream-come-true, while virtually every American is one illness or accident away from financial ruin — insured or not.
“MaineCare ought to be managed professionally, more like the private insurance sector…” Gasp!
To what degree could that $347 billion ease patient and family suffering? …the exponentially larger profits of corporate insurers?
“MaineCare ought to be managed professionally” — period.
Dropping people from the rolls? There is no “savings” — monetary or societal. ..only greater costs.
This is a great article because it makes the effort to identify misconceptions and present facts to rebut them. When you look at who is costing us the most, it should be no surprise that the elderly and catastrophically ill represent a huge majority of the costs. Of course, anti-government rhetoric never addresses this inconvenient fact. It is easier to blame the lazy drug addicted neighbor in our imaginations than to get people behind the idea of cutting off grandma or the permanently disabled amputee.
Nobody wants a system that rewards laziness, not liberals, not conservatives. Nearly all share an ideal of fairness in our society. These programs have been designed to limit eligibility and to provide care for those who have no means to care for themselves. In this they are at least 95% effective.
There have been some efforts to “intervene” with frequent E-R users who are on MaineCare. Many managers have made phone calls to try to educate the people that using an E-R instead of a doctor costs more and provides poorer outcomes than seeing a PCP.
Another point not made in this article is that the cost of administration is very low compared to private insurance companies. Most medicaid program average about 3% administrative costs compared to 10% and up for private insurers. This demonstrates the focus on efficiency with taxpayer dollars. These programs are lean and effective in general. No private insurer could compete with efficiencies like this. This is an example of something government does better.
Don’t confuse me with the facts!!!!!