Repeal HCR, or else your school funding will be slashed

[OmahaBlueDog]

From: Omaha World Herald
Title: Senator: Letter gives 'false choice'

Excerpt:

LINCOLN — The Omaha Public Schools superintendent and at least one state senator are crying foul after Gov. Dave Heineman asked the state's major education groups to support repeal of the federal health care overhaul or face possible cuts in state funding.

Heineman, a staunch opponent of the overhaul, states in the letter: “I am writing today to encourage you and your board to support the repeal of this federal health care law. If you sit silently by, I am going to assume that your lack of action is tacit support for increased Medicaid funding and the likely reduction in funding for education.”

The letter, which was sent to three organizations that represent the state's teachers, administrators and school boards, goes on to state: “The future of education funding is at stake. Don't sit on the sidelines.”

OPS Superintendent John Mackiel expressed dismay, saying he had never seen such threats from former Govs. Mike Johanns and Ben Nelson.

More at: http://www.omaha.com/article/20100828/NEWS01/708289903#senator-letter-gives-false-choice


Normally, I might post this in the Nebraska forum or LBN, but I'm posting it here because I have a strong suspicion that this will not be an isolated, Nebraska incident.

[Igel]

1. It's a common false choice.

There's a kernel of truth in it, though: HCR increases costs in a lot of ways while looking at two things--how many people are covered, what's covered, and what does the Federal government pay. Whenever there's a budget battle, community protection services and education are the first to be publicly led to the chopping block even if they're usually led away, unscathed or under-scathed, afterwards.

By increasing the range of what's covered, the HCR increases the costs of private plans. Overall it might not--I think it will, but don't have the numbers to crunch--but no private plan is "overall," all have non-random subpopulations. So you'll see price increases. We've seen some price increases attributed to that. But it's not a cost to the federal government, so it doesn't appear count. There's a large discrepancy on right and left over the effect these price increases will have.

By increasing Medicaid coverage, the HCR increases costs to states. Nelson got a bailout for Nebraska, for example. The feds will increase Medicaid funding overall for a few years to cover much of the increased cost, then the help is to be phased out. Remove the phase-out provision and you get a bill Obama wouldn't have signed because it's too expensive; without the temporary funding in the bill the Congressional leaders wouldn't have gotten enough votes. But if you leave the phase-out in place, and you make states pay much of the bill for what Congress took credit for. Some states have less of a burden: If they had ample Medicaid provisions the ramp-up of Medicaid will affect them less. Other states--primarily red--will have a greater increase in costs. I view this provision as a cynical ploy like the * tax cuts are understood to have used: If you don't phase them out, you get nasty budget numbers; if you phase them out, you have a political fight that you think will help your side.

So in 2013 and 2014 you can expect to see the same political battle all over the place: To increase state taxes to pay for the increased Medicaid mandate or cut spending elsewhere, to repeal part of the HCR that's already been in place for a couple of years (making for a group of voters who would be in favor of protecting the program that helps them), to increase federal funding for the program. This isn't the opening salvo. Nelson's perk was the opening salvo, it's just that nobody was paying attention.

[Catshrink]

2. How about cutting the Pentagon budget and we'll have money for both?

I'm sure this will go national - Nebraska might be the test to hone the message. Fuckers.