Their work is very detailed and analytical, as usual. In a three part series, first they outlined the crisis, including the massive increase in funding that Obamacare will add, in their report Final Notice: Medicaid Crisis A Forecast of Texas’ Medicaid Expenditures Growth. In their second report, The Big Squeeze, Analysis of Spending Cuts or Tax Increases Necessary to Maintain Current Medicaid, they detail that the current program is not sustainable. In the third and final report, Medicaid Reform: Constructive Alternatives to a Failed Program, they offer three specific alternatives that they think will solve the problem. From the final report:
This paper proposes dramatic reforms to the way medical care and services are provided to low-income individuals, under a new assistance program: TexHealth. TexHealth offers a starting point for the discussion of reforming Medicaid into a free market based program. TexHealth would change the dynamic of Medicaid from a defined benefit program to a defined contribution program, allowing individuals to make their own decisions in regards to their health insurance needs.
and
Providing direct subsidies for health insurance motivates low income populations to obtain the health insurance that fits their particular circumstances, and not what the state decides they need.
Imagine that! Conservatives giving po’ folks the same choices that rich folks have!
Where are the solutions from the liberals? Solutions that do not simply raise taxes to continue the current, unsustainable system?
Crickets can be heard chirping for miles and miles.
Well, except for Houston area Rep. Garnet Coleman. Rep. Coleman was recently in Austin for a Sunday morning discussion on the growing budget reality of state Medicaid and other health services assistance, especially to the young, the old and the infirm. Greg Holloway of the Austin Tea Party Patriots (he is also one of the advisors to Sen. Patrick’s Tea Party Caucus) advocated for seeking private and non-profit solutions to these services, since government’s impact on eliminating the underlying causes of the lack of self-sufficiency is questionable at best. Rep. Garnet Coleman argued that federal law requires the state to provide such funding and, whether through state or federal programs, the government should continue to so.
After the discussion at KXAN ended, Mr. Holloway and Rep. Coleman continued an informal discussion off air. Mr. Holloway asked him, “What will happen if government funding of such health services to the old, the young and the infirm eventually crumbles under the weight of budgetary realities in the coming years? Shouldn’t we plan around the problem before it happens?”
Rep. Coleman’s answer: “I’ll let it crumble.”
Most likely, Rep. Coleman was frustrated by the line of questioning and gave a flippant answer. If he was serious, he would obviously be implying his agreement with some of the That headline is a little different than you read in the news, isn’t it? Actually, it is a lot different because the headlines in the news continue to regurgitate the tired meme that conservatives only want to talk about cutting government expenditures without offering specifics on where to cut. That the opposite is true seems not to matter to most reporters, who choose to pass along alarmist rhetoric rather than take the time to learn the truth. Let’s take just one example – Medicaid. As everyone seems to be aware of, Medicaid funding in Texas is a major financial burden and that burden is growing each and every day. Some of the early criticism of conservatives was warranted when Rep. Warren Chisum sought publicity in his bid for House speaker by declaring that we should opt-out of Medicaid without having a clue as to how we would do that. Fortunately, the folks over at the Texas Public Policy Foundationtook it upon themselves to figure out if this could be done, and if it could, could it be done in such a way that it both saves taxpayer money and continue to provide subsidized care at an acceptable level? Yes, they determined, it can be done. Their work is very detailed and analytical, as usual. In a three part series, first they outlined the crisis, including the massive increase in funding that Obamacare will add, in their report Final Notice: Medicaid Crisis A Forecast of Texas’ Medicaid Expenditures Growth. In their second report, The Big Squeeze, Analysis of Spending Cuts or Tax Increases Necessary to Maintain Current Medicaid, they detail that the current program is not sustainable. In the third and final report, Medicaid Reform: Constructive Alternatives to a Failed Program, they offer three specific alternatives that they think will solve the problem. From the final report: This paper proposes dramatic reforms to the way medical care and services are provided to low-income individuals, under a new assistance program: TexHealth. TexHealth offers a starting point for the discussion of reforming Medicaid into a free market based program. TexHealth would change the dynamic of Medicaid from a defined benefit program to a defined contribution program, allowing individuals to make their own decisions in regards to their health insurance needs. and Providing direct subsidies for health insurance motivates low income populations to obtain the health insurance that fits their particular circumstances, and not what the state decides they need. Imagine that! Conservatives giving po’ folks the same choices that rich folks have! Where are the solutions from the liberals? Solutions that do not simply raise taxes to continue the current, unsustainable system? Crickets can be heard chirping for miles and miles. Well, except for Houston area Rep. Garnet Coleman. Rep. Coleman was recently in Austin for a Sunday morning discussion on the growing budget reality of state Medicaid and other health services assistance, especially to the young, the old and the infirm. Greg Holloway of the Austin Tea Party Patriots (he is also one of the advisors to Sen. Patrick’s Tea Party Caucus) advocated for seeking private and non-profit solutions to these services, since government’s impact on eliminating the underlying causes of the lack of self-sufficiency is questionable at best. Rep. Garnet Coleman argued that federal law requires the state to provide such funding and, whether through state or federal programs, the government should continue to so. After the discussion at KXAN ended, Mr. Holloway and Rep. Coleman continued an informal discussion off air. Mr. Holloway asked him, “What will happen if government funding of such health services to the old, the young and the infirm eventually crumbles under the weight of budgetary realities in the coming years? Shouldn’t we plan around the problem before it happens?” Rep. Coleman’s answer: “I’ll let it crumble.” Most likely, Rep. Coleman was frustrated by the line of questioning and gave a flippant answer. If he was serious, he would obviously be implying his agreement with some of the Cloward-Piven theories of years past. Theories that are becoming more popular now that Glenn Beck has read about them. Rather than attack Rep. Coleman for his apparent flub of an answer, I asked Mr. Holloway how Rep. Coleman might have answered it if he had taken the time to ponder the question. Mr. Holloway came up with this answer: he could have raised the question of whether the private and non-profit sector was ready to pick up care for those who had no means to care for themselves. So I asked Mr. Holloway to answer his own question – his answer is going to surprise those of you that think Tea Party leaders are all loud mouth, rhetorical, selfish, racists. Mr. Holloway’s answer:That’s a good question. While no reasonable person advocates turning away those who cannot help themselves, it would not be as simple as flipping a switch to go from a mindset of the government as nanny-state to one in which the private and non-profit sector (or the citizens of the state, for that matter) would be immediately and universally ready to bear the full load of state health services. You didn’t see that coming did you? Well, unless you have actually been to a Tea Party meeting, that is. If you are one that relies solely on the descriptions of Teapers portrayed in the press and on left leaning blogs, you surely must be surprised to learn that we do not want to “flip a switch” and kick people to the curb. But like the title says, conservatives don’t just talk, they offer solutions. So, once again, I asked Mr. Holloway what his solution would be and this is his reply: The citizens of Texas need to realize that (i) the costs of providing Medicaid and similar benefit programs across the state continue to rise far faster than the rate of inflation or population growth, (ii) these government programs, although often needed in the short term to serve indigent seniors, children and the disabled, have largely proved ineffective in allowing those served to rise out of the cycle of poverty and (iii) if unchecked, the combination of these rising services costs and prevailing budget constraints will result either in other budget items (such as public education) being “crowded out” or the services themselves no longer being provided. Either way, someone loses. The solution is to begin to explore private and non-profit sector alternatives to the current government services that could reduce costs and encourage less of a sense of entitlement and more of a sense of ownership and dignity for the service recipients (and their providers). And lo and behold, the Texas Public Policy Foundation did exactly that with their reports. How about that? Those crickets from the left just keep on chirping. Short notice and no, METRO isn’t subsidizing it, so you will have to pay. Please join us for the Greater Houston Pachyderm meeting! Trust me – this is a meeting you will not want to miss. Speaker: David Jennings – Big Jolly Politics bigjolly.com Big Jolly Politics is David’s attempt to tell the truth, the whole truth and let the chips fall where they may. David states: My goal here is to have “voices” that represent many sides of conservatism and Republicanism. Tuesday, February 22nd , 11:30 a.m. Tony’s Restaurant at 3755 Richmond Avenue. Lunch – $25.00. Hope to see your Tuesday, SuZanne That should cement the meme that I represent the “establishment”! I hate to say it but it certainly looks as though Sen. Dan Patrick is putting his personal ambition ahead of the need for a solid abortion reduction sonogram bill. He compromised quite a bit to get his own sonogram bill out of the Senate, watering it down substantially. Now that it has been sent to the House, he is apparently pulling out all stops to get his bill through quickly, rather than the bill set aside by Speaker Joe Straus on this issue, HB15. A comparison done by Texas Right to Life clearly shows that HB15 is a far stronger bill than Sen. Patrick’s bill (companion is HB201), yet the factions that Sen. Patrick used to try to defeat Speaker Straus are now sending out urgent messages saying that it is more important to pass Sen. Patrick’s bill than the stronger bill because it would be “quicker”. * * * URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT 2/21/11 * * * Please urge Texas House Speaker Joe Straus to support the pro-life Patrick-Morrison Sonogram Bill, Senate Bill 16 / House Bill 201 Each day of delay means dozens of abortions will occur that could have been averted! ==> Please forward to pro-life individuals and email lists <== Please immediately call and urge Texas House Speaker Joe Straus to support the pro-life Patrick-Morrison Sonogram Bill, Senate Bill 16 / House Bill 201, and to allow it to move promptly through the committee process and onto the House floor. Senate Bill 16 and House Bill 201 are “companions.” They are really the same bill, and one can be substituted for the other at appropriate times. The Senate passed Senate Bill 16 last week. The House State Affairs Committee will consider House Bill 201 on Wednesday, February 23. Your call is urgently needed. Every day of delay in passing this bill will means dozens of abortions will occur that might have been averted. That is because 220 abortions are performed each day in Texas (81,500 per year). We believe the Patrick-Morrison bill could reduce the abortions by 10-20{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} or more. Quicker? By a couple of weeks? In the long run, those couple of weeks are meaningless, especially given the fact that this bill is far weaker! Why on earth would the Texas Alliance for Life send out an email hoping for a weaker bill? I hate to say it but I think it gets down to basic politics. If HB15, the stronger bill, passes, it will go to conference committee and someone besides Sen. Patrick will be standing next to the Governor when he signs it. I also think that is the answer to Paul Burka’s observation. When will we conservatives stop using abortion as a political football and focus on actually reducing them? Sen. Patrick needs to step aside and let the House pass the stronger bill, then clap for whomever is on the podium with the Governor as he signs it. Really? Seriously? I don’t think I’ve ever commented on a Houston Chronicle editorial before but the first paragraph of their editorial about banning smoking in Texas dated 2/20/2011 jumped off the screen and slapped me upside the head: Seventy percent of Texans support a statewide ban on smoking in public places, according to a recent poll by Baselice & Associates. When was the last time that many Texans agreed on anything? Three things on which Texas voters agree at the 70% level immediately came to mind, each of which the SAME editorial board has railed against: Voter ID, English only, and the death penalty! Don’t believe me? Take a look at the polls: (click on the picture to enlarge) Voter ID (July 2008, March 2009, June 2009): English only (May 2010): Death penalty (February 2010): Told you so. I can agree with this sentiment though: We know it’s naive to believe that good legislation with overwhelming popular support should sail through the Texas Legislature. It is naive because as of today we still do not have Voter ID or English only legislation in force. And most likely after this session, we will still not have English only legislation. But we WILL have Voter ID. Will we see a similar call to action from the Chron ed board encouraging their readers to contact their legislators to pass Voter ID or English only? Um, don’t hold your breath, okay? Here is a call to action for you if you want to help. English only? Forget about it this session, it isn’t going to happen. Voter ID? Don’t worry about it, it is going to pass. The best thing for you to do in that area is to head over to a King Street Patriots meeting and drop a couple of bucks in the hat as it passes by, showing them your appreciation for leading the charge. I hate to say it but it certainly looks as though Sen. Dan Patrick is putting his personal ambition ahead of the need for a solid abortion reduction sonogram bill. He compromised quite a bit to get his own sonogram bill out of the Senate, watering it down substantially. Now that it has been sent to the House, he is apparently pulling out all stops to get his bill through quickly, rather than the bill set aside by Speaker Joe Straus on this issue, HB15. A comparison done by Texas Right to Life clearly shows that HB15 is a far stronger bill than Sen. Patrick’s bill (companion is HB201), yet the factions that Sen. Patrick used to try to defeat Speaker Straus are now sending out urgent messages saying that it is more important to pass Sen. Patrick’s bill than the stronger bill because it would be “quicker”. * * * URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT 2/21/11 * * * Please urge Texas House Speaker Joe Straus to support the pro-life Patrick-Morrison Sonogram Bill, Senate Bill 16 / House Bill 201 Each day of delay means dozens of abortions will occur that could have been averted! ==> Please forward to pro-life individuals and email lists <== Please immediately call and urge Texas House Speaker Joe Straus to support the pro-life Patrick-Morrison Sonogram Bill, Senate Bill 16 / House Bill 201, and to allow it to move promptly through the committee process and onto the House floor. Senate Bill 16 and House Bill 201 are “companions.” They are really the same bill, and one can be substituted for the other at appropriate times. The Senate passed Senate Bill 16 last week. The House State Affairs Committee will consider House Bill 201 on Wednesday, February 23. Your call is urgently needed. Every day of delay in passing this bill will means dozens of abortions will occur that might have been averted. That is because 220 abortions are performed each day in Texas (81,500 per year). We believe the Patrick-Morrison bill could reduce the abortions by 10-20{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} or more. Quicker? By a couple of weeks? In the long run, those couple of weeks are meaningless, especially given the fact that this bill is far weaker! Why on earth would the Texas Alliance for Life send out an email hoping for a weaker bill? I hate to say it but I think it gets down to basic politics. If HB15, the stronger bill, passes, it will go to conference committee and someone besides Sen. Patrick will be standing next to the Governor when he signs it. I also think that is the answer to Paul Burka’s observation. When will we conservatives stop using abortion as a political football and focus on actually reducing them? Sen. Patrick needs to step aside and let the House pass the stronger bill, then clap for whomever is on the podium with the Governor as he signs it. Conservatives offer solutions – liberals offer rhetoric
Lunch with Big Jolly!
Is Sen. Patrick putting ambition in front of abortion?
Houston Chronicle supports policy by polling?
Is Sen. Patrick putting ambition in front of abortion?




