Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Healthcare. Show all posts

30 October 2025

Healthcare, the ACA and Obama's Legacy

Credit is due to the Republicans holding town halls around the country. But that's about all we the people can offer, because, while they had the fortitude to hold the town halls, they had no grit in answering their constituents' questions.

Take, for example, this week's Ron Johnson call. It was pretty pathetic. When asked explicitly what the Republicans will do to lower the costs of health insurance premiums, all listeners heard was deflection. "Obamacare has failed to lower the costs, and we have to fix it by letting it go away by allowing the free market to operate. Americans should be able to shop for insurance and if they want catastrophic insurance, that should be available." 

When the Senator was pushed for the actual plan to carry this out, it became increasingly more apparent that there actually is none. Republicans want us to return to the time before the ACA.

Now, if you're one that can't quite remember what health insurance was like 15 years ago, here's a quick recap: some 40 million Americans had no health insurance. Millions of others only had insurance that kicked in under life threatening circumstances and millions of others had coverage with exorbitant copays and massive deductibles. Tens of millions of people relied solely on ER visits for healthcare. 

Way back in 1980, this was such a problem in the country that Ronald Reagan, a fiscal conservative, signed the EMTALA act that paid hospitals with federal dollars for taking care of anyone who showed up ill. The struggle with medical bills and insurance got so bad that in a presidential debate in 2011, while the Republican candidates were arguing about what to do with uninsured sick people in the hospital, Ron Paul suggested that no one should take care of that person, the audience cheered; when asked whether that meant Mr. Paul would let the uninsured patient die, the audience yelled, "Yeah!"

That's the country we were living in. 

The Affordable Care Act (ACA), the act derogatorily referred to by Republicans as Obamacare, was supposed to function as a marketplace for insurance! While this seems unbeknownst to MCs like Ron Johnson, the ACA's structure was based on the Massachusetts health care act signed into law by Mitt Romney. That's true! That's the same Republican Mitt Romney who ran for president against B. Obama. The ACA was actually a fiscally conservative plan.  

The reasons that health insurance premiums are rising get complicated quickly, but it's not because of the ACA marketplace. The Kaiser Foundation indicates that premium costs are rising at lower rates than prior to the ACA.

Check it out:


The graph shows that prior to the ACA's introduction in 2014, premiums were rising by double digits. Premiums were growing faster prior to the ACA. Strangely to the chagrin of Republicans, Obamacare has been slowing the growth of premiums.

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

So, back to the town halls. This was the common theme around the country: Obamacare has failed, trust Republicans to fix this, and, oh yeah, by the way, they have no plan. Republicans have done nothing over the last 15 years. Not even Concepts of a plan.

To make it even worse, President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill defunds EMTALA taking the USA back to pre-1980 conditions.

Don't be deceived. Donald J. Trump and his minions, the Republicans, on this issue do not care about the American people. 

Democrats are right to hold out for the extension of the subsidies. Let's hope we get it. And let's hope Republicans wake up and stop kowtowing to the megalomaniacs in the White House.

03 October 2025

And so it goes, the devil's at the helm

Wickedness incarnate:

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked Thursday about Trump’s promise to work with Office of Management and Budget Director (and Project 2025 architect) Russ Vought to ax so-called “Democrat Agencies” in the government. “Is that real?” a Fox News host asked Leavitt. “Or is that a negotiating tactic?”

“Oh it’s very real. And the Democrats should know that they put the White House and the president in this position,” Leavitt replied. “And if they don’t want further harm on their constituents back home, then they need to reopen the government. It’s very simple: Pass the clean continuing resolution, and all of this goes away.”

It's putrid and disgusting that an administration would behave this way. We should all be equally disgusted that she said this while flaunting the cross of Christianity:



These are not Christian ideals. No Christian should support these tactics. Awful. 

Fire Karoline Leavitt. What the hell is a Democrat Agency? 

21 November 2012

The Affordable Care Act: Back to Reality

Nine Republican Wisconsin State legislators are threatening to arrest any federal officials who try to implement a federal health insurance exchange in the state.  This development prompted the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial staff to declare, "What's next: Firing on Fort Sumter?"

Evidently that's just what the next step is intended to be.  Yet even ultra-conservative Justice Antonin Scalia knows better.  "There is no right to secede," Scalia recently wrote.

Gov. Walker finally announced his administration will not be presiding over the implementation of a health exchange for Wisconsin because for one he's against it and two it will cost Wisconsinites too much.  The specific details on how the exchange would cost Wisconsin more than not having them is unclear and diametrically opposed to what the intention of the exchanges is designed to be.  The exchanges are supposed to be designed to save buyers of insurance money by providing more choices to access.

Similar exchanges are currently used by public employees through the Employee Trust Fund (ETF) in Wisconsin. Through the ETF, public employees choose an insurance plan that fits their needs and based on the contributions they would like to make.

It seems obvious that all citizens of Wisconsin should have access to a similar exchange. 

While concern over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is understandable given the nation's inherent distrust of monarchical rule, the ACA is anything but a government takeover of health care.  In fact it is more or less a buy-in to private insurers.

A look at the finer points of the law clearly illustrate how the whole framework of the law is based on conservative and capitalist notions including the provision that everyone buys in.  The so-called individual mandate holds every citizen responsible for his/her own health insurance.  The individual mandate is an attempt to stop people from not purchasing insurance only to show up sick in an emergency room with no way of paying for care.

Although many people may dread the idea of being encouraged toward buying health insurance in lieu of a cash penalty, the people who shouldn't be complaining about the individual mandate are those who agreed with Mitt Romney that there are certain people who don't pay for services.  Likewise, emergency room professionals know all too well the sheer numbers of people who carry no insurance yet expect emergency care.  The ACA's individual mandate hopes to lessen that problem which in turn could lower health care costs.

Below I've tried to highlight some key provisions in the ACA:

Stage 1 (in effect now)
• Outlaws worst health insurance abuses including denials based on preexisting conditions for children (adults in 2014).
• New standards for insurance, such as allowing young adults to stay on parents policies until they are 26.

Stage 2 (goes into effect 2014)
• Expand BadgerCare (Medicaid) to almost all low income Wisconsinites.
• Create competitive health marketplace to guarantee coverage to everyone who does not have good insurance at work.
• Require Members of Congress to buy the same plans offered to everyone else in the new marketplace.
• Strengthen Medicare for Seniors.

 Stage 1 Reforms:
Insurance Practices Outlawed now under the Affordable Care Act
• Preexisting condition exclusions (kids now/everyone in 2014) (see below for a list of preexisting conditions)
• Lifetime limits
• Dropping coverage after a person gets sick
• Excessive insurance industry profits and overhead (80-85% of your premium dollars must be spent on medical care, not profits)

The Affordable Care Act guarantees
• Preventive care coverage (ex: Mammograms, checkups, etc) with no cost sharing (co-pays, deductibles, etc)
• Young adults can stay on parents policies until age 26
• Preventive care without cost sharing for seniors on Medicare

Health insurance companies hold the right to deny any coverage for people who may have been diagnosed under previous care with any one of the following medical conditions.  These are called Preexisting Conditions and this list is not exhaustive:
• Diabetes
• Arthritis
• Heart Disease
• Obesity
• Asthma
• Cancer
• Stroke
• High Blood Pressure
• Hypertension
• Stress disorders
• High cholesterol
• Kidney disease
• Alcohol and drug abuse
• Hepatitis
• ADHD
• Adjustment disorders
• HIV/AIDS
• Alzheimer’s
• Angina (Chest Pain)
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Pancreatitis
• Dermatomyositis
• Emotional disturbances
• Emphysema (Lung disease)
• Major organ transplant

Sami’s Story
“My 7-year-old son, Sami, suffers from a disease that causes tumors to grow all over his body. Sami’s treatments could not continue if we hit our insurance policy’s life time limit. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits or deny health coverage to children like Sami with preexisting conditions. We can’t go back to being on our own against the insurance companies.”
--Tracy, Appleton, Wisconsin

Remy’s Story
“I own a small café. Over 20 years ago I beat cancer, but ever since then no insurance company would sell me a policy because my cancer is called a preexisting condition. Starting in 2014 under the Affordable Care Act, no insurance company will be allowed to discriminate against me because I’m a cancer survivor.”
--Remy, Pepin, Wisconsin  

14 July 2012

On Repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Sent Wednesday, July 11, 2012.  No response as of 7/13/12


Representative Sensenbrenner,


I would like to try to understand why our House of Representatives has decided to spend an entire day voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act.


It seems to me that our country has bigger issues to deal with especially when we consider that most OECD member countries offer their citizens coverage comparable to what our elected officials receive.  In the US, however, perhaps one of the wealthiest nations in the history of civilization, our elected leaders refuse to look after the welfare of the people and instead expect the poor, the indigent, the uneducated, and everybody else to navigate the intentionally convoluted terms of private insurance companies that are out to maximize profits rather than offer medical coverage.  


Would it be so troubling to our elected officials if the type of medical coverage we, the people, provide for them, the people's representatives, were to be extended to us, the people?


Instead, it seems that our representatives would like to debate a law that has been passed and upheld by the highest court, and offer the public as a viable solution to the recession "voodoo economics" again - an economics system that does not work.   As we see today, luxury items sales are on the rise even while our economic woes continue to cascade millions into the pits of impoverished despair.


To me, and many others in this country, it would seem far more applicable to the people for elected officials to be more concerned about the levels of concentrated wealth over the past 40 years.  


In many countries, there are caps on executive pay.  It seems that the time has come for what Thomas Paine would have described as the necessary evil of government intervention.   When a society fails to function well on a fundamental level, we require government to intervene.  It is a fundamental truth of our Constitution that government provide for the welfare of the people.   This very central idea to our republic may be far more worthy to debate than attempting to repeal a law that many Americans need because they are living with pre-existing conditions and cannot get healthcare coverage without this legislation.


What we ought to be focusing our attention on in this country is reducing our military budget, an astronomical $700 billion, and its impact on the rest of the world, and rather concentrating on domestic development.  At no time should a child in the United States go without food nor should monetary gain take precedence over people.  That seems to be utterly reprehensible and immoral behavior from a country founded by great thinkers.


Shouldn't Congress be focused on raising the quality of life for all the citizens of the United States?  Afterall are we not the people written about in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  I would venture to guess that we are.


Voting for the repeal of a law that has already been enacted and deemed to be constitutional by the Supreme Court and also in many ways beneficial to many Americans seems utterly wasteful when a plethora of other challenges face this great nation.  


If there is a valid explanation for this time-wasting, I am sure I would not be the only citizen interested in hearing about it.


Sincerely,

28 June 2012

If America were a person, she'd be a Psychopath

The ultimate symbol of America is the Statue of Liberty. At the end of the cult-classic, “The Planet of the Apes,” Charlton Heston screams in anguish and shock at the sight of the crumbled lady buried in the sand.  The Statue is America’s promise of freedom and wealth; she is the embodiment of the republic.  Lady Liberty is the beacon of freedom rising up out of the revolutionary dust.  In her upraised arm, is the torch, a symbol of a light always burning, and at her feet the enduring words dedicated to Emma Lazarus:

 Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free, 
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, 
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, 
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Unlike the humility of the poem at her feet, America has been a bully throughout her short life.  Whether she was committing genocide of the native people’s of this continent, waging war against poorer nations, or toppling foreign governments, America has been built by capitalizing on the weak.  She prides herself on being self-righteous, advertising that her brand of democracy is the “best”, yet she is also callous, uncaring, and hegemonic.  On the surface, she invites all of the destitute to her shores but when they arrive, there’s no room in the inn.  Recent draconian anti-immigration laws bar any path toward citizenship and Pres. Obama’s executive order has been met with derision.  

While life in America may comprise more conveniences than life in Niger or Iraq, America cares little for her citizenry.  The gulf between the richest among us and the poor has continued to grow, and the numbers of people living in poverty is growing.  As Prof. Cornell West explains, “That 1 out of 5 children live in poverty in the richest nation in the world is a moral obscenity; it’s an ethical abomination.”  

The health care sector has become a place of business rather than human welfare.   The dichotomy between rich and poor has not been more clear-cut than when it comes to health care.  Americans with money may be able to obtain quality health care while millions of Americans with little money receive inadequate care.  
That seems okay in America.  While some people are working to defend the impoverished and mend the dysfunctional health care system, others align themselves to cutting social programs designed to help the needy, and prefer privatization of health coverage in which insurance companies and their leaders reap the massive financial rewards.  The most recent attempt at health care reform, the Affordable Care Act, teeters on the brink of repeal thanks mostly to the radical politics of the new right, which is bent on slashing taxes and funding military excursions, like insanely bombing Iran, rather than addressing our core problems at home.  Should we trust corporate chiefs over governmental officials?  The government’s responsibility is to provide for the welfare of the people.  A corporation’s responsibility is to earn money.  

America today floats out ambiguous ideas like “liberty,” “freedom,” and “democracy” as values yet boasts the largest population of incarcerated people in the world.  In 2010, there were 2.5 million adults locked up in our prison system, many for non-violent second or third strike drug offenses.  Millions more are on parole or probation and many of those ex-cons have been stripped of the right to vote or qualify for federal or state assistance. Michelle Alexander’s great contemporary analysis of the legal system, “The New Jim Crow,” details the policies that have disenfranchised millions and setup a harsh legal system for minorities and the impoverished.  

In addition, America detains thousands of people each year, houses them in prison without charges, and without due process let alone habeus corpus.  The pedantic chant of freedom has become totally meaningless.  What can freedom mean to a country that imprisons millions?  How can America teach justice when she regularly metes out injustice and revenge? 

Along with the hundreds imprisoned, illegally detained, in Guantanamo Bay and Bagram, there are the uncounted immigrants seeking refuge on our shores that are turned away, sent back to repressive regimes where America is fully aware that torture is practiced. 

All of these contradictory descriptions sound like irrational lunacy.  If America were a person, she’d be locked up indefinitely and placed under 24-hour observation.  

Not only is America uncaring and inconsiderate toward the welfare of humanity, she is violent and destructive.  

America’s prisons have become dens of punishment rather than rehabilitation.  According to the Economist, “(a) total of 12% of juvenile detainees, 4.4% of prison inmates and 3.1% of jail inmates surveyed between 2008 and 2009 reported being forced into sex.”  Not much has been done to combat these trends.  An even more disturbing and frightening development is to hear people joke about prison rape such as warnings not “to drop the soap” in the shower or the knowing glance about what happens in prison.  It’s completely irrational behavior but leads to the downplaying of a brutal crime. 

America has done nothing to stop the torture in military prisons either.  Waterboarding is common place and the military defends its abuses by claiming national security interests are at stake.  The public and its congressional representatives have for the most part bit this hoax hook, line, and sinker.  America should not let this line of argumentation justify torture.  But it does.  The use of "enhanced techniques" at Guantanamo was approved by Donald Rumsfeld, despite resistance from the army and FBI who argued that the methods were illegal.  Torture continues in Iraq and Afghanistan where presumably the Geneva Convention would add layers of protection.  America has repeatedly disregarded those ethical obligations.  If another country were torturing our American citizens, there’d be talk of retaliation regardless of “collateral damage”.

Open a daily paper or turn on the television in America, you’re more likely to see two people disemboweling each other than disrobing each other.  America’s hunger for violence seems insatiable.  Two recent wars, murders in the streets, mass killings, bombings of sovereign nations, and now Abraham Lincoln hunting vampires still hasn’t satisfied her desire for bursting guts, blasting guns, exploding cars, and splattering blood.  And that’s not including the “Paul Ryan Budget” plan.  Even the theatrical release of the tame, reflective, and didactic Seuss classic, “The Lorax,” when transferred to the silver screen, had to have sequences of action and violence inserted.  There are few video games or movies released today that do not feature violent sequences such as car chases, shootings, explosions, fighting, etc.  Violence is ubiquitous and many Americans have grown so desensitized to it all that they don’t even notice it.  

The extent of violence entwined in the fabric of America’s culture ought to be alarming and distressing to the populace but it isn’t. Politicians let the ban on assault weapons lapse; they’ve passed concealed carry laws in almost every state; a homicide occurs just about every 8 minutes in America; and America is killing civilians of other countries every day.  Yet Americans keep voting for politicians that support the system in place.  Republicans are pushing for less and less regulations on guns and deeper cuts to welfare programs like food stamps.   Over the last three years, gun companies have posted record sales.  There are twice as many guns banging around America than there are people.  Guns are responsible for 70% of the nearly 16,000 homicides in America, that’s twice as many homicides as the Euro zone and the UK combined.

America is obsessed with guns and with killing.  More than half the states have passed similar legislation to Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.  Recently a drug dealer escaped murder charges.  In Wisconsin, a young man whose blood alcohol content was twice the legal limit hid in a neighbor’s house and was shot and killed for it.  There was no trial.  No charges were pressed by the DA because the Castle Doctrine would have preempted any charges.  These are dangerous precedents.

On the same day that a report was released detailing how 26,000 Americans die each year due to inadequate access to health care, 44 senators wrote a letter to Pres. Obama urging America to wage war on Iran.  While millions of Americans struggle with poverty, America debates waging yet another war.  Something is wrong with this picture.

America’s foreign policy hasn’t been much different.  Violence seems to be a first choice selection by many in the Republican Party.  Neither party has forced or acted to stop the increasing drone attacks that have killed thousands of innocent people in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  Either due to diffidence or cowardice, elected officials have chosen not to oppose the government’s plan to bomb nearly indiscriminately.

The question every American should be asking is: What would America do if another country were dropping bombs on the USA?

If all of this sounds completely insane, that’s because it is.   
  
While violence is ubiquitous, love is virtually unseen.  Instead, America has erected a booming porn industry that, much like the gun industry, has also been recording record profits.  Since the end of the 60s peace and love movement, violence has been condoned, love has been ridiculed, nudity vilified, and poverty has been ignored, while seedy, loveless pornography is more widely available than any time in America’s brief history. 

To put all of these characteristics into perspective, turn to Robert Hare who designed the psychopath test.  Hare created a diagnostic tool called the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL) in 1980.  It would later become known as the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R).  The PCL-R measures psychopathy on a forty-point scale.  The test itself is more of an inventory than an examination.  Each type of category is rated on a scale of 0, 1, or 2 points; the more points, the more psychopathic.  After reading about the psychopath test, it’s nearly impossible not to analyze everyone as either teetering on the edge of psychopathy or as psychopathic.  The line between normal and abnormal becomes incontrovertibly blurred, reminiscent of the Zimbardo prison experiment.  But that shouldn’t prevent us from using the test. 

Describing America and analyzing her through the lens of the PCL-R reveals concerning results.  She scores a very high score on the test.  Not only is she demonstrably violent and callous, she is also irresponsible, impulsive, refuses to accept responsibility for her actions, blatantly lies and deceives, holds grandiose opinions of herself, exploits other countries, and has no control over her own behavior.   

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) reports that in America today “there are 1,002 known hate groups operating across the country, including neo-Nazis, Klansmen, white nationalists, neo-Confederates, racist skinheads, black separatists, border vigilantes and others. And their numbers are growing.” (And that's just the Republican Party). These are armed militants who openly despise anyone and everyone who doesn’t fit their American model.  If this isn’t crazy enough, America is currently doing nothing about these organizations.  They are encouraged in their rage by hate mongers on television and commercial radio.  Lack of gun control legislation ensures that militant hate groups are well armed with explosives and high powered weapons.  The SPLC has documented nearly 100 plots, conspiracies and racist rampages since 1995 — plots and violence waged against a democratic America.”

To add to the rising numbers of hate groups, the National Human Trafficking Resource Center reports that there are more humans trafficked in the US today than at the height of the trans-Atlantic slave trade.  The numbers of humans trafficked include American citizens as well as foreign nationals held against their wills.  These numbers are increasing not waning.

Just as disconcerting as her lack of control over her actions is America’s lack of remorse.  America feels no remorse for her actions.   She coldly defends her decisions even when they’ve been proven to be wrong.  Remember Iraq.  Remember WMDs.  Remember any apologies or accountability at all?  Nah. Remember George HW Bush’s infamous pronouncement, “We must never apologize for the United States of America.” Mitt Romney recently repeated the same sentiment and Leon Panetta made the same remark regarding Pakistan.  Pres. Obama continues to approve killing hundreds of thousands in drone attacks and, unbelievably, openly takes credit for murdering bin Laden and Awlaki.  No remorse.

America reveals no remorse for the mining and bombing raids of Cambodia, or the buried DDT in Korea, or the destruction of Iraq.  No empathy for the thousands who have died in drone attacks and in wars.  If it sounds sick, that’s because it is. Instead of regretting deaths, America celebrates them.

During the republican primary debates, crowds cheered when one candidate advocated letting a sick person without insurance die. On Bill Maher’s HBO show, the audience cheers whenever he mentions the killing of bin Laden.  When did killing become a celebratory act?

These are signs of a depraved nation like the pacing cheetahs at the zoo. America continues to commit murders around the world, blatantly lies about the nature of her behavior, refuses to apologize or empathize with her victims, and ignores the problems within her own borders.

Who acts like this?  A psychopath would.  America fits the bill; if America were a person, she’d be a psychopath.  Lady Liberty’s got a new sobriquet, Lady Lunacy. It's not the land of freedom, it's the land of ferocity.
---------------------------------------
America's PCL-R Diagnosis: Prototypical Psychopath
____________________________________________________________


03 December 2011

Save BadgerCare

Contact: Bob Jacobson
December 1, 2011                                                                                                    
(608) 284-0580, x303              


50 Wisconsin Groups Unite to Call Upon Federal Government to Reject DHS Waiver

Madison- In an effort to prevent more than 64,000 Wisconsinites from losing their BadgerCare coverage, 50 groups from throughout Wisconsin, call on U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Sebelius to deny the recent request from the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) for a waiver of federal maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements. 

As outlined in the attached letter to HHS, a diverse and broad group of organizations urge rejection of the waiver for reasons including:

  • The waiver would jeopardize the care of 168,000 Wisconsinites, including more than 64,000 who are expected to drop out of BadgerCare.
  • Approving the waiver would cost 29,000 children their BadgerCare coverage.
  • The waiver would have disproportionate impact on people with disabling conditions
  • The waiver would harm many extremely low-income families.
  • The waiver would result in cost-shifting, not cost savings.
  • The waiver would increase red tape and reduce enrollment efficiency.

The Save BadgerCare Coalition also faulted the DHS process, which precluded an opportunity for meaningful public input, because the essential details of the proposal were not made available in advance of any public hearings.

Wisconsin has long been a national leader in ensuring that its residents have access to quality health care, and BadgerCare—an immensely popular and effective program--has been a major part of that success story. 

Approval of DHS’ waiver proposal would reverse that progress and would conflict with the goal of the health care reform law to make health care better and more affordable. 

To be connected with representatives from the signing organizations, or BadgerCare enrollees who can speak to the impact these changes will make in their lives, please contact Bob Jacobson.

10 November 2011

And yet, "Lawmakers OK changes that could drop 65,000 from Medicaid"


By Jason Stein of the Journal Sentinel

Madison - The Legislature's nonpartisan budget office projects 65,000 people - nearly half of them children - would leave or be turned away from the state's health programs for the poor, under a proposal passed by lawmakers Thursday.

The Joint Finance Committee approved 11-4 a proposal by GOP Gov. Scott Walker's administration to help bridge a more than half-billion dollar budget gap in the rapidly growing health plans. All Republicans voted in favor and all Democrats against.The proposal doesn't need any further approval from state lawmakers but must still win federal approval from President Barack Obama's administration by the end of the year - a significant hurdle.

The Medicaid health plans cover about one in five state residents - almost 1.2 million people - and provide everything from doctor visits for poor families to nursing home care for the elderly. To help control rapidly increasing costs in the programs, Walker's administration wants to decrease benefits for a quarter of a million recipients, increase premiums for tens of thousands of others by up to tenfold, and drop coverage for adults and children for at least a year if a family misses a payment.

Advocates said they were concerned about the impact of the changes, particularly on the participants who will end up leaving the program because they lose their eligibility or because they can't or won't make the higher premium payments.
"Most of them will probably end up uninsured and will no longer have access to preventive health care when they need it," Jon Peacock, research director for the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, said before the hearing.

Medicaid programs like BadgerCare Plus and Family Care are jointly paid for by state and federal taxpayers, with the state budgeting to pay $6.73 billion in state and federal money for them this year. State spending is up significantly, but the overall spending in the program will still decline this year by an estimated 7% because a surge of federal aid money has run out.

The Walker administration and Republican lawmakers said the state has no other options to deal with the health programs besides raising taxes. They noted that Medicaid programs are gobbling up more and more of the state budget and squeezing out other key priorities like schools.

They said some other states are simply booting recipients from the program even if they have no other options. State Health Services Secretary Dennis Smith, who formerly oversaw Medicaid programs for the federal government under then-President George W. Bush, said the Wisconsin proposal would have "national significance."
"Under our approach, individuals would lose coverage only if they make the choice not to pay a fair share of their coverage," Smith said, adding later, "We're at least giving people a choice."

Smith and Rep. Robin Vos (R-Rochester), the co-chairman of the Joint Finance Committee, said that they believed many of the people who leave the program will go to private insurance instead. But the Department of Health Services offered no estimate on how many would be able to get private coverage.

"All of us wish we could do more but the money just isn't there," Vos said before the hearing.

Democrats said Republicans had approved tax breaks for businesses and the wealthy this year that worsened the cuts. The Democrats said some uninsured will get sick and receive expensive emergency room care, pushing costs off on Wisconsin hospitals and the insured patients who go to those hospitals.

According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the proposals would save $298 million over two years and would also :
  • Move 263,000 people in BadgerCare Plus - more than half of them children - into a plan with lower costs for taxpayers but fewer benefits for recipients. Smith said the benefits were still attractive when compared with private plans.
  • Increase BadgerCare Plus premiums sharply for families with incomes of one and a half times the federal poverty limit. The new premiums would be 5% of household income, a change that would have a varying impact for families according to income.
For instance, a single parent with two children who makes more than $27,795 a year would typically see his or her annual premiums rise to $1,390 from $120 - a more than tenfold increase. In all, the higher premiums would apply to 91,500 BadgerCare Plus participants - almost two-thirds of them children.
Democrats said the premium hikes were unacceptably high. Republicans said those premiums were still less than the private sector would charge.

Drop both adults and children from the program for one year if participants failed to pay their monthly premium without a valid excuse. Currently, adults are dropped for six months for failure to pay but children are not.
Put in new eligibility standards such as checks to make sure participants live in the state.

Make little or no cuts for low-income disabled and elderly participants, who account for much of the costs in Medicaid.

The committee chose not to make up for a hole of at least $45 million in the program's budget, which could prove a future financial trap. That shortfall opened after the state learned that it wouldn't receive a windfall in federal money to make up for certain past Medicaid costs improperly charged to states like Wisconsin.

Rep. Tamara Grigsby (D-Milwaukee) said that she believed many poor families would drop out of the program because they don't have the money to afford the new premiums.

"That doesn't sound like a choice to me," Grigsby said. "We're giving them a heck of a Christmas gift, a heck of a holiday surprise."

The state will need approval by Dec. 31 from the federal government to make the proposed changes. Otherwise, Wisconsin could be forced to generate immediate savings by dropping 53,000 adults from its health plans under that year-end deadline included in the budget law passed this summer by Republican lawmakers and Walker.

Democrats question whether the federal government will have enough time to consider the proposal, given that it can take several months to decide on such requests from states.

Over the past 20 years, the Medicaid rolls in Wisconsin have increased at nearly 10 times the rate of population growth, according to state figures. That increase has been driven both by state and federal expansions of the program and by the difficult economy.

Increased federal support from the 2009 economic stimulus law and later extensions helped pay those rising costs in the last state budget, but that extra funding has ended.

In the 2011-'13 state budget, Republicans put an additional $1.2 billion into Medicaid programs to help cover the added costs. But to close a $3 billion deficit for the state's overall two-year budget, the Walker administration said it needed to find $554 million in additional savings in state and federal money.

In other action Thursday, the committee voted 13-2 to approve a plan for distributing cuts in funding that goes to counties to ensure parents make their child support payments. The 22% cut in the aid for enforcement efforts statewide works out to a preliminary figure of $2.5 million less for Milwaukee County in both 2012 and 2013.

According to a memo from Milwaukee County, that could lead to 27 lost county positions and $12 million in lost child support collections.

The committee also voted 14-1 to provide $10 million in funding over the next two years for a statewide computer system to track student learning across Wisconsin's hundreds of school districts. That's $5 million less than the state budget had set aside over those two years.

08 November 2011

State’s Health Care Plan a Lose-Lose for Wisconsin Families

Contributed by Jessica Jaglowski.

Every time I read something about Wisconsin’s plan to remove thousands of people from the state’s highly successful and nationally recognized BadgerCare program, I’m baffled. The Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) has held multiple listening sessions, and I’ve spoken in front of Secretary Smith twice. He even held my baby. I think they are trying to find solutions. But at the same time, the solutions they are looking at still exclude working families with low incomes and no affordable health care options. It’s as if monetary concerns now far outweigh the concerns of people’s basic welfare. Health care is a primary need - you cannot function without your health. Yet so many people cannot afford to get the care they need. People should matter more than money, especially in these trying times.

Unfortunately, the cuts being proposed will seriously affect people - regular hard-working people trying to raise their families. My family comprises one of the tens of thousands of Wisconsin families at risk of losing our BadgerCare coverage.

My husband is employed full time at a nonprofit organization, and our annual household income hovers around 133% of the federal poverty level for our family of five, which includes our three children, ages 9 months to 6 years. His employer offers a health plan, but the premium costs $15,000 a year, almost half of our total income. There's no way we could afford it.

While health insurance costs have skyrocketed, reaping billions of dollars in profits for the CEOs of the major health insurance companies, salaries for working people have remained stagnant. For us, like so many other working families, health care means BadgerCare.

So what do these proposed changes mean to us? DHS has laid out two scenarios:

The first is to implement a plan - one that requires federal approval - that would ratchet up monthly premiums and co-pays based on family income, while shrinking the range of services covered. This plan means monthly premiums increasing from $10 a month to more than $100 for families like us already just barely getting by. It means paying hundreds of dollars more in out-of-pocket costs. It means worse coverage. If this plan passes, health care will no longer be affordable for families like mine. Thousands of us will be forced to choose between buying groceries and buying insurance. With three little mouths to feed, which do you think we’ll be forced to choose?

The other option - again, self-imposed by this administration - is equally bad: If the federal government doesn’t approve the DHS plan, they’ll lower the income eligibility level to 133% of the federal poverty level, the lowest allowed by federal law. 133% of the federal poverty level also happens to be just about what my household brings in. About 53,000 Wisconsinites will be shut out of coverage, most likely including members of my family. For us, it’s a lose-lose situation.

Gov. Walker claims that budget problems have left “no choice” but to kick thousands of people off of BadgerCare and Medicaid. This is not true. These dramatic changes could be avoided by rolling back about a quarter of the tax cuts the legislature has handed out to corporations and the wealthy this year. Sec. Smith keeps saying what a good value BadgerCare would still be after the proposed changes. Again, this is not true. How can anything be considered a “good deal” if you simply can’t afford to pay for it?

The listening sessions held by DHS have not gone unappreciated. However, with the announcement of either drastic cuts or extremely increased fees, it seems clear that Gov. Walker and Sec. Smith are out of touch with the financial realities of working people in Wisconsin. They ostensibly don’t understand what it means to have to decide each month which bills get paid and which can be temporarily put off, or between buying your child a decent pair of shoes and paying a third of your income for health insurance. As many Americans are startlingly beginning to realize, you can’t buy something if you don’t have the money to pay for it. The people of Wisconsin need Sec. Smith to rework this plan that potentially leaves so many people without BadgerCare and instead figure out a way to reduce health care costs without increasing the number of uninsured Wisconsinites; more uninsured people only ends up increasing health care costs for all of us. Wisconsin needs BadgerCare to remain viable and strong to protect and uphold the general welfare of the people.


Jessica Jaglowski, a mother of three, lives in Milwaukee.

Save BadgerCare

Statement from the Save BadgerCare Coalition on DHS Waiver Plan

Madison - One week ago today, late on Halloween, the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS) released its plan to cut over $500 million from Medicaid.  Despite minor changes to the original plan released on September 30, the DHS plan still leaves Wisconsin in a no-win situation.

This Thursday, the Joint Finance Committee is expected to review the parts of the plan that require a federal waiver. If the federal government approves the waiver request, DHS’s plan will be implemented and tens of thousands of people will lose their coverage. If the waiver is denied, the state budget requires that about 53,000 adults be kicked off of Medicaid and BadgerCare.  In either scenario, working families in Wisconsin lose.

The Wisconsin Act 10 passed earlier this year shifted authority for health care policy decisions from the Legislature to DHS, giving them near-total control over how to implement the more than half-billion dollars in spending cuts to Medicaid and BadgerCare. The DHS plan includes drastic premium increases of up to 2,000%, benefit reductions, and other restrictions that will reduce available services and shift costs to struggling families, the elderly, and people with disabilities.

The Save BadgerCare Coalition rejects the notion that reducing eligibility and benefits for these critical programs is the best or only option. This unbalanced approach essentially shifts the financial burden onto already struggling individuals and families.  This cost shift will ultimately weigh on employers and workers who have health insurance, since they will end up paying more to cover health care for the greater number of uninsured resulting from their plan.

Since the private health insurance market has priced so many families out, BadgerCare and other Medicaid-funded programs in Wisconsin have been extremely successful in making health care coverage available to the vast majority of Wisconsinites. It would be a tragedy to weaken BadgerCare so dramatically before there are other affordable option available for Wisconsin families.

The Coalition calls on DHS to address the many concerns our members and the people they represent have raised about the waiver proposal and other aspects of the plan before moving forward. Wisconsin has long been a national leader in ensuring that its residents have access to quality health care, and BadgerCare—an immensely popular and effective program--has been a major part of that success story.

There are other alternatives that deserve serious, deliberate consideration. We strongly oppose undermining the health of hundreds of thousands of people in our state by fast-tracking an ill-conceived proposal in order to meet an unnecessary, self-imposed deadline.

The Save BadgerCare Coalition includes a broad and diverse alliance of advocates for public health, disability rights, women’s health, the aging community, children’s health along with working individuals and families that depend on Medicaid including BadgerCare for their health, well-being and economic security. For more information visit www.savebadgercare.org .

30 September 2011

The Fuckers at Wisconsin's DHS

The fuckers at the Wisconsin Department of Health Services have proposed as part of their money saving scheme to slash the amount of recipients to the Badgercare system.  The inhumane bastards care little for the concept of government providing for the welfare of the people.  In this new age, government officials care more about turning a profit or balancing the budget rather than about the people the government has been created to protect.

These officious pricks are busy taking largess salaries and claiming nice benefits while denying the rest of us equal benefits.  This is utterly outrageous.  They are the pigs lining the rest of us up for slaughter.

"Dear Dennis Smith, you dirty rat,

I am shocked to hear that this proposal includes eliminating hard working families with employment but unaffordable health coverage through their employers.

This seems to me beyond comprehension and terribly malicious.  I work a full time job but my employer only covers 75% of the cost of my premiums.  The rest of my family receives no employer benefits.  The result of this is that my annual premium is $12,000 with a $3,000 deductible.  The Wisconsin DHS has now determined that I should pay this outrageous premium.  This ridiculous sum totals nearly half of my annual salary.  Although this egregious blackmail is not yet illegal, it is positively primeval and unethical.  Because while my family suffers the fat fucking coffers of health care executives grow ever fatter like pus filled zits. 

The DHS would have me believe that I am on my own then to find affordable health care?  As it has happened, our saving grace through this great recession has been the government's care and oversight of health care through BadgerCare.  Without the very effective BadgerCare system my family would find itself in dire straits (evidently the great asshole of Wisconsin would like this to be so). 

One of the roles of government is to provide for the welfare of the people.  BadgerCare accomplished that mission.  Removing people from the program is tantamount to a calamitous offense committed against the citizenry of Wisconsin.

Rather than cutting hardworking citizens tending to their families from their health care provisions, how about addressing some of the outrageous monetary gains made by local hospitals and health care providers.  Yet, it is far easier to attack the weakest among us than it is to address the real problems in our society - greed and avarice of the wealthy capitalist glutton pigs.

Well it's appalling to think that my family and others in the same situation as us will lose health care coverage only to find out what so many other families in America already know too well that no affordable health care option exists. 

Although there is nothing I can probably do to convince this agency of the inherent error in its ways, I sincerely hope that these methods of saving a buck over protecting people will be seriously rethought.  In addition I invite you all to kiss my ass and get thee with godspeed to hell."

You sons of bitches.  We all get the message being transmitted: All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

15 July 2011

To Fix America Start with Military and Health Care Spending

America stands on the precipice.  The road we are traveling will lead to our downfall simply because the rate of our spending is unsustainable.  As Republicans have made abundantly clear our debt will pull us under and lead us to default unless we follow Italy and pass some very serious austerity measures.  We have heard so much about Greece and the crisis they face.  Yet the US debt dwarfs that of Greece and the US debt makes up a larger percentage of our GDP.  The only difference is investor confidence that the US can and will rebound.  That mood can change swiftly as fickle investors grow concerned over unemployment numbers inflation woes.  The crisis in Italy sort of popped suddenly. Additional anxiety must be attached to the burgeoning gap between the wealthy and poor, a clear indicator of a shrinking middle class.  While corporate profits are up 22%, take home pay for the average worker is down or is stagnant.

In order to solve America's problems, every citizen will be asked, not to make sacrifices, but to make investments in our country.  That is how each of us should look at taxes.  Taxes are the revenue that supports our government which in turn tends to the welfare of the people.

What elected officials should do is formulate a four year plan aimed at real austerity measures designed to raise revenue and cut spending.  The federal budget should be addressed based on where the largest funding is now directed - military spending and health care (Medicare & Medicaid). 

American citizens have to force our elected officials to cut military spending over the next four years to a much more manageable amount.  We cannot afford to spend $650 billion on new WMDs, chemical experiments, and the various investing strategies that remain in place from the cold war era.  Reducing military spending by a half would be ideal but perhaps not realistic, a third would be practical.  Cuts would eliminate superfluous spending, close Guantanamo prison, end bombing raids on Libya and Pakistan.  Instead investment would be made in forging closer diplomatic relations with North Korea, Cuba, and Iran.  It would mean a different tactic in our self declared war on terror that would require the cessation of such rhetoric as "axis of evil" and nations of evil.

The next major reform is to end profit in health insurance by implementing a single payer system modeled after Taiwan and Canada.  Everyone would buy in and no billionaires can opt out.  This would require initial investment but in the long-term would lead to huge savings if it were initiated properly.  The time has come in America to end unfair medical treatment on the basis of the size of someone's bank roll.  We would invest in our future by investing in the health of the people.  Given the status of the US as the fattest country in the world, we ought to be demanding change in our country.  Our elected officials, and elderly receive incredible coverage that they would never want to give up.  They all receive government health care.  The percentage of people who are so frightened of "socialized medicine" need to open their eyes to the fact that the people they have voted for are receiving health coverage paid for with tax dollars.  Why shouldn't everyone be covered by the same insurance?

Ron "Another Rich White Guy in
Congress" Johnson
Not too long ago Ron Johnson entered the Senate race because he claimed to be incensed by the health care overhaul that Pres. Obama proposed.  Has Ron Johnson refused to accept government provided health coverage?  Of course not.  And no one should because it's great coverage that every American deserves.

Along with universal health coverage will come higher taxes or individual premiums.  Either way we cannot let the wealthy opt out.  And, the government must not allow the end of earned income credits yet also lower capital gains taxes.  Capital gains taxes must be increased and the incentive to offset realized gain with loss should be more tightly regulate.  There is no way a rich man like Herb Kohl should ever have a tax liability of zero.

In Wisconsin, the model healthcare program for the country could very easily be created.  Badger Care is a great program that provides comprehensive coverage.  There are currently budgeting concerns and questions abound whether the program is sustainable.  However, if every Wisconsinite bought in to Badger Care, there would be no budgetary concerns.  Premiums would be assessed based on income.  The state would act as the negotiator.   Public employees also receive health coverage.  The entire system could be unified and  expanded to cover every Wisconsinite.   

Fixing our health care system shouldn't be impossible.  The major obstacle is in the insurance lobby and the damn fools who are scared to death of a single payer system.  Fear of change is understandable.  But not changing because of fear is condemning oneself to certain doom.

In addition to raising taxes to pay for universal health care, the government must level the domestic to international playing field.  Manufacturing jobs have been sent to emerging markets.  The biggest reason Germany has been able to recover from the global recession is that government regulation has forced companies to retain domestic manufacturing jobs.  The US has allowed corporations to send those same jobs here overseas and the corporations have not been penalized for doing so.  It is time Pres. Obama warm to the idea of introducing a value added tax (VAT).  In addition, in order to shore up competition we should introduce a tariff on all imports.  The incentive will be for American corporations to keep their jobs here in order to produce more goods on American soil.  A tariff will immediately reward those businesses that still manufacture goods in America.

Education 
America will also need to instill a renewed investment in education, specifically elementary education, by focusing less time on test results that have been marketed by corporate interests and more time on authentic learning experiences, creative thinking, and mastery of basic facts and key concepts (arithmetic, phonetics, grammar, the scientific method, etc.).  Recent overtures in Wisconsin and Indiana to spend more money on private education will only exacerbate the problems.  These problems won't surface for 5 or ten years but when they do, it will be stark.

Another failed policy that should be redacted as soon as possible is the reduction of vocational secondary programs.  There should be a sincere effort at reimplementation of these vital programs.  In Germany and most other countries, high school students have an academic track or a vocational track.  Not every person is going to be a doctor or scientist or teacher.  A society needs people who are plumbers, hair stylists, mechanics, farmers, without them our society would cease to function just as we could not function without doctors.  When the vocational programs were reduced, the movement was about treating everyone equally.  Unfortunately we are not all the same.  Workers can be treated like equals, people can be treated like equals, yet they can still pursue different interests.  We all don't need an equal education, we just need equitable opportunity.

Incarceration
The government should terminate the war on drugs.  Through legalization of marijuana and its subsequent taxation and the cessation of our failed drug war, billions of dollars in revenue and savings would be realized.  The amount of incarcerated Americans is staggering - over 2 million, and the rate of incarceration of black American males is shocking and depressing.  Non-violent offenders have received the worst treatment in our prison system.  Rather than providing resources and assistant we have for too long focused on punitive measures.  Let's force our legislators to end these tragic policies.

Additionally, the American people must relinquish their conservative attitudes toward marriage.  We are spending too much time debating social policy that has no bearing on functioning government.  The two dominant parties have deflected our concerns back to us, which in turn has created a divided public.  A divided populace is a malleable and controllable group.  The citizens of America must unite to forge a better America that is concerned with raising the quality of health, education, safety, and transportation. 

These are just a few of the necessary austerity measures America must realistically face.  I fear that if we do not, in fifty years there may not be a United States of America.  It is not farfetched to imagine that secession could follow default or any other impetus, such as a massive social catastrophe.

=================================================

Duplicitous Republicans May Be Insane with Spending; Republicans Don't Like Clean Water Either

While the republicans, especially those in the tea party wing, would like you to believe they want to cut spending, they aren't making the most noble effort to actually limit spending.  Their aim is to make us think that they are trying to curb government spending.  But this is just not true.  Last week members of of the House voted 336-87 to increase military appropriations for 2012 by 2.7% up to an incredible $649 billion.

If that sounds like austerity, then austerity must now mean indulgence.  At one time in the history of English 'nice' meant wanton.  It is possible that we are in the midst of a great shift in the English language.  Chances are higher that this is just simple duplicity carried out by the republican party.  The key to understand the tea party movement is that these people do want to cut some government programs, specifically those that help US citizens, while they raise the funding for other government programs, specifically those that help businesses send more jobs overseas, which in turn provides more money to their election funds, and those that enable our military to keep growing at a comparable to North Korea, China, Russia, and half the world.  

Between the defense/military budget, Medicare/Medicaid, and Social Security, the government is dishing out $2 trillion a year.  People are quick to blame Obama for the spending but they quickly forget that it was Bush who penned his name to the Medicare bill that will cost from 2003 to 2013 about $1.2 trillion.

I would argue it was necessary.  But it is also necessary for everyone in the country to have the same coverage.  It makes no sense that some people, including our congress people who couldn't run pantyhose let alone the government, have government health care while others either have nothing, emergency coverage, or whatever they can afford.  We are the only developed nation in the world that doesn't insure its citizens have access to health care.  It's a travesty that needs to be remedied if we expect to continue to be the great democracy that we purport to be.


The Economist reports that the number of uninsured hospital visits rose last year to 800,000 a 14% increase from 2009.  For those that are insured, average monthly premiums rose by 12% between 2006 and 2008.  Republican will claim that the health exchanges failed to create viable competition.  But that's hogwash.  Taiwan has a single payer system much like the Canadian system.  Costs are low, the system is efficient - there are no waiting lines, and they are rated as providing higher quality care. 

At some point we all need to ask ourselves if it makes any sense to vote for people who wish to fund the US war machine and yet sacrifice the welfare of the people.  I understand that some people vote against abortion or against gay marriage, well it's time to grow up.  There are greater concerns than two men fucking.  They're doing that anyway.  It can't hurt any more than it does if they're wed.

Start voting on issues that really matter.  Instead of spending all of our money fucking the world up let's focus on spending money on getting fucked up.  Some of these politicians could use a little fucking up.  We introduce a few bongs into the chambers.  Get some good ganja - medicinal - not that skunk weed.  You don't hear of too many Rastafaris planting roadside bombs, blowing themselves up in the name of Ras Tafari, or threatening to wipe Florida off the map, or invading sovereign nations.  That's not so difficult, is it? The feds can obtain good shmit - hell they've got a drug czar, right?  We've got a drug czar for a reason - he's got all the best shmit.  We've already admitted the drug war was a failure anyway - so if you can't beat 'em ...  Let's all light up.  Cheer some of these bastards up and get the people some damned health care coverage for chrissakes.

Find budget documents here.

Find the Commonwealth Health report here, in which the US ranks last.

==================================================================

This week republicans introduced a bill that seriously limits the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) powers to set clean-water standards under threat that Pres Obama will (justly so) veto it.    As reported in Bloomberg,
The bill blocks the EPA from tightening water pollutant limits without a state’s consent if the agency previously approved the state standard. The measure, which passed 239-184 yesterday, is part of an effort to rein in what Republicans say is an agency’s regulatory overreach threatening the economy. Sixteen Democrats joined Republicans to support the measure.
The democrats who joined the republicans on this are clearly out of their minds.  What are these knuckle heads thinking?  Supporters of the bill "said limits on the EPA would give farmers, coal companies and other businesses that discharge pollutants into waterways greater certainty that standards won’t be changed."  What does that even mean?  Standards won't change?  Discharge pollutants?  The logic behind that explanation makes no sense.  Perhaps what supporters meant to say was that lax regulations will ensure that there are low standards that will cost businesses less money to meet so they can continue dumping pollutants unchecked into our water.  Now that's a bit more wordy but much more accurate.
 
Like so many bone-headed moves by the right wing (I mean, Michele Bachmann, seriously?), this bill makes no sense and is not supported by the science.  According to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), who grade US infrastructure viability, US drinking water and wastewater receives a grade of D-.
The nation’s drinking-water systems face staggering public investment needs over the next 20 years. Although America spends billions on infrastructure each year, drinking water systems face an annual shortfall of at least $11 billion in funding needed to replace aging facilities that are near the end of their useful life and to comply with existing and future federal water regulations. The shortfall does not account for any growth in the demand for drinking water over the next 20 [tip:years.=Fix that leak!
A faucet dripping just once per second will waste as much as 2,700 gallons of water per year. Fix any leaking faucets.]
 The ASCE lists solutions that include more funding for the EPA and Clean Water Act, not less.  While the republicans would like all of us to baa in unison and thank them for trying to rescue American business, what we should really thank them for is exemplifying what is clearly dysfunctional in our government.  There are idiots showing up for work on Capitol Hill.
 Here are the set of recommendations from the ASCE:
  • Increase funding for water infrastructure system improvements and associated operations through a comprehensive federal program;
  • Create a Water Infrastructure Trust Fund to finance the national shortfall in funding of infrastructure systems under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, including storm-water management and other projects designed to improve the nation’s water quality;
  • Employ a range of financing mechanisms, such as appropriations from general treasury funds, issuance of revenue bonds and tax exempt financing at state and local levels, public-private partnerships, state infrastructure banks, and user fees on certain consumer products as well as innovative financing mechanisms, including broad-based environmental restoration taxes to address problems associated with water pollution, wastewater management and treatment, and storm-water management.
When will the myopia of the right wing end?  Probably not until serious damage is done.  Just look at Wisconsin where Scott Wanker's cuts will be felt all over the state soon enough.  Nothing has come up in association to the tort reform passed in January yet but it will.  County transit systems are feeling the pinch.  My bus line used to run every half hour, then every 45 minutes, now every hour.  Rates are going up too.  It's going to get ugly really quickly and we'll all be carrying guns when that happens.
==========================================
Scott Wanker decided to give a speech at a Gateway Technical College even though he's cut funding to community colleges across the state.  Almost as rich as creating the public employee of the year award.  What a real putz.