Federal
"You Do Not Have Health Insurance"
Published August 09, 2009 @ 09:06AM PT
There's a great post up at The Baseline Scenario concerning the diffuse worry that healthcare reform will negatively impact those with health insurance in the US. It basically eviscerates the lie that "employer-subsidized health care for the duration of your employment" is health insurance: "as long as your health insurance depends on your job, your health is only insured insofar as your job is insured – and your job isn’t insured."
Unlike NycWeboy, who believes no one is paying attention to the needs to reform Medicaid for better coverage and care of the poor, James at TBS thinks "people remain convinced that health care reform is for poor people. [But] It’s for everyone – everyone, that is, who isn’t independently wealthy or over the age of 65. Because all of us could lose our jobs."
FYI: Medicare = health insurance.
More great links to while away your Sunday afternoon after the jump.
Understanding Medicaid Reform
Published August 07, 2009 @ 05:13AM PT
Just a quick note to let you know that I've asked occasional guest blogger NycWeboy to post here weekly on the healthcare debate, paying particular attention to the issue of Medicaid reform and possible expansion. I thought it would be a nice accompaniment to Tim's Healthcare blog, and I for one could certainly stand to learn more about the Medicaid argument.
Then I can make sense of these fretful articles about governors fighting with the feds over who's going to pick up the check for this expansion. Sigh.
Paying for Better Healthcare
Published August 04, 2009 @ 12:00PM PT
Good news! Turns out, we already are!
H/t to Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly, I see in 2008 we taxpayers spent almost $1,800 per federal worker to cover their healthcare:
Among the advantages: a choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member's home state. By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan -- take it or leave it.
Lawmakers also get special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities and, for a few hundred dollars a month, access to their own pharmacy and doctors, nurses and medical technicians standing by in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers.
In all, taxpayers spent about $15 billion last year to insure 8.5 million federal workers and their dependents, including postal service employees, according to the Office of Personnel Management.
There's also no "pre-existing condition" exclusionary cause for federal employees.
Check out the original article to read about Rep. Steve Kagen, a Democrat and former physician from WI who won't accept the federal package until all American's have the same coverage. No health insurance for Kagen, but he's got principles that clearly the rest of his colleagues lack.
(Photo from the rally for the right to healthcare in DC, June 2009, by NESRI)
A Nation of Hustlers?
Published August 03, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
(Photo of "Hunger Amidst Plenty" by Kamal H.)
I have to ask: why do so many of our public policies assume the worst of human nature? Check this out from a depressing NYT piece on how unemployment benefits are going to run out by year's end for a frightening # of unemployed Americans:
Traditionally, many economists have been leery of prolonged unemployment benefits because they can reduce the incentive to seek work. But that should not be a concern now because jobs remain so scarce, said Lawrence Katz, a labor economist at Harvard.
For every job that becomes available, about six people are looking, Dr. Katz said. “Unemployment insurance gives income to families who are really suffering and can’t find work even if they are hustling to look,” he said.
Look, $300 a week in unemployment benefits is nothing to sneer at, but honestly, is it really a negative incentive? It's slightly more generous than working full-time for a week at minimum wage, and it's about half of what the median hourly wage pays weekly in the US.
Why do we assume that by offering any shred of a safety net we're creating a nation of loafers, hustlers, thieves, layabouts, and their rapaciously needy offspring?
Seriously - what are the roots of these very disturbing assumptions? I don't get it.
Public Housing Funds Spent on Middle-Class Families
Published August 02, 2009 @ 01:36PM PT
[Atlanta Housing Authority CEO Renee] Glover said that pushing out chronic public housing residents is the only way to break the cycle of poverty, and she has led many of the nation's housing authority leaders to the same conclusion.
Thanks to the Associated Press, I finally get some hard numbers on HOPE VI's - and our nation's housing authorities - impact on reducing deeply affordable housing in the U.S. As we've covered here previously, Atlanta is nearing the final demolition of its public housing projects. It's doubly sad to read about this as I learn that Atlanta was home to the first public housing project in the U.S.: Techwood Homes. As ATL abandons its developments for mixed-income complexes, we have also abandoned the original spirit and intent of the program, evoked by a former President:
President Franklin D. Roosevelt heralded the project as "a tribute to useful work under government supervision" and the first step in building a safety net for the working poor during the Depression.
These days, the US Dept. of Housing & Urban Development spends its money building housing for the middle class.
Annie E. Casey Foundation Calls for Updated Poverty Measure
Published August 01, 2009 @ 12:00PM PT
As I'm scrolling through the weekend poverty news, I see that this week the Annie E. Casey Foundation released its 20th annual Kids Count report on child poverty in the U.S. The information is presented in a user-friendly on-line "data book" that I recommend checking out to learn more about the particulars of your state.
I took a look at the summary brief of the report and was pleased to see that in their recommendations for making better use of data to drive policy, that improvements include updating the US poverty measure to reflect contemporary economic and political realities. Why collect data if it's based on outmoded definitions of hardship? Excellent point! More on this below the fold.
KnoxNews.com has a handy round-up of the key findings in the report, based on data collected through 2006 (the current recession will be reflected in their next report):
The report documented improvements since 2000 in the infant mortality rate, child death rate, teen death rate, high school dropout rate, and teens not in school and not working. Four areas have worsened: low-birthweight babies, children living with jobless or underemployed parents, children in poverty, and children in single-parent families. (my emphases)
Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi - Katrina's darlings, weep - continue to rank worst among states for child well-being.
I rarely do this, but this extensive block quote from KnoxNews.com captures perfectly efforts to redefine the poverty measure is - check it out after the jump.
Less Crime, More Hunger
Published July 30, 2009 @ 01:26PM PT
I just finished reading a very frustrating article about the impacts of the HOPE VI program's impacts on public housing residents' lives ($). For those not in the know, HOPE VI is a program that since 1992 provides federal subsidies to demolish and redevelop public housing projects as mixed-income communities. Proponents say it improves residents' lives by enabling them to live in less-poor neighborhoods with better-off neighbors and that taken together these changes will bring increased safety, economic opportunities and role models for low-income residents.
The "role modeling" thing always ticks me off, but the bigger problem with HOPE VI is that it pursued a housing demolition and development strategy as the sole means to reduce poverty and inequality. If you know anything about the myriad problems poor people face in terms of job prospects (e.g., health problems, disability, young children at home, etc.), then you'll probably be unsurprised to learn that the most recent HOPE VI assessment shows no impact on residents' economic status. None. Sigh.
But the "choice" residents face between crime and hunger is what really gets me.
