Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor
Meet Josh Miller. He’s a young Republican state legislator from Heber Springs, Arkansas. He took office in 2013. Miller also manages a rental property business. More than a decade ago, he was paralyzed when he broke his neck in a catastrophic car accident. Fortunately, Miller hasn’t been confined to an unproductive life because of his accident and subsequent paralysis.
More about Miller from the Arkansas Times:
Miller, 33, was on an alcohol-fueled drive with a friend about 11 years ago (he can’t remember who was driving) when their pickup plunged off a ravine near Choctaw. He was rescued, but suffered a broken neck and was paralyzed. Miller was uninsured. What young, fit man needs health insurance, he thought then. (He had some reason to know better. Not long before, he’d broken his hand in a fight and had to refuse the recommended surgery to fix the injuries properly because he was uninsured.)
Months of hospitalization and rehabilitation followed, including a long stretch in intensive care at St. Vincent Infirmary. There was a $1 million bill. Medicaid paid most of it. Miller was placed on disability and checks began. In time, between Medicaid and Medicare, all his health costs were covered by the federal government. For that reason, he need not be among the 82 Arkansas legislators (61 percent of the body) who enjoy heavily subsidized and comprehensive state employee health insurance.
According to the Arkansas Times, health insurance isn’t the only benefit Miller receives from the federal government. A Medicaid program also provides funding for his daily personal care assistance. Miller is able to enjoy a productive life as the manager of a rental property business and as a state legislator because of “his own grit”…and also because the government paid for his trauma care and continues to pays for his ongoing Medicare and Medicaid coverage and personal care assistant.
Yet, this man who owes his own well-being to being a recipient of Medicare and Medicaid benefits is opposed to the expansion of Medicaid coverage in his state of Arkansas. Just last week, Miller “orated against the private option Medicaid expansion. He even invoked FDR’s New Deal — a “hand up,” he said, not a “handout.”
Max Brantley of the Arkansas Times wonders how someone who has received—and continues to receive—so much public assistance could oppose health insurance for “the working poor.”
Brantley:
Miller sees it differently. He said some who qualify for the private option aren’t working hard enough. He claims many want health insurance just so they can get prescription drugs to abuse. He draws distinctions with government help for catastrophic occurrences such as he suffered. He falls back, too, on a developing defense from private option holdouts that they prefer an alternative that wouldn’t end coverage for the 100,000 people currently signed up, at least until next year. This is disingenuous. He and other opponents have made clear that they want to strip Obamacare from government root and branch. Here’s how Miller boiled his opposition down:
“My problem is two things,” Miller said. “One, we are giving it to able-bodied folks who can work … and two, how do we pay for it?”
Lucky for Josh Miller, such thinking didn’t prevail when Congress — over Republican opposition — created the programs that sustain him.
On Thursday evening, Miller was interviewed by Chris Hayes of MSNBC. During the interview, Miller “defended his opposition to Medicaid expansion in the face of his own significant benefit from the program.” Miller said that the government “can’t afford to cover more people.” Miller also claimed, once again, “that he and other opponents don’t want to take coverage away from people already signed up.”
Rep. Josh Miller (R-Heber Springs) talks Health Care in Arkansas with Chris Hayes on MSNBC
Brantley says that Miller’s claim that opponents of Medicaid expansion in Arkansas “don’t want to take away coverage from the 127,000 who’ve already been signed up” is inaccurate. Brantley adds that Miller KNOWS his claim is inaccurate—and that to “knowingly say something inaccurate is, well, a lie. “
David Ramsey (Arkansas Times) said that the opponents of the “private option do not believe there should be a publicly funded safety-net program providing health insurance for low-income Arkansans.” He added that they’re “putting enormous energy into ending the private option, which would take away coverage from 100,000 (and counting) people.” Ramsey noted that for some of the opponents politics is at the root of their opposition. He said there are others who “have sincerely held reasons for that belief.” They think the private option “is bad public policy.” Ramsey said, however, that the “outcome of their preferred policy — ending the private option — is precisely to kick 100,000 people off of the coverage they’ve gained this year through the private option, and to ensure that around 100,000 more eligible people never gain that coverage at all.” Ramsey said that it’s time for the opponents “to own that.”
According to Kris Giuliani (UPI), lawmakers in Arkansas “must re-approve funding for the expansion, with a 75 percent supermajority, to keep the program intact. Approval of the bill is still a few votes short, including Miller’s.”
Brantley:
A coldly rational person might say a cook in a fast-food restaurant, working long hours at low pay to feed a family, looks more deserving than an uninsured person injured on a drunken joy ride. I would not. No one should be pre-judged on a subjective merit test for health care. We are all God’s children — all residents of a country Republicans like to call exceptional, despite its lack of universal health care.
Apart from the core philosophical difference — Miller opposes an expansion of government expenditures; I don’t — Miller’s position seems to boil down to the belief that some needy people are more deserving than others.
~ Submitted by Elaine Magliaro
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
SOURCES
Paralyzed GOP Lawmaker On Medicaid Opposes Medicaid Expansion (Talking Points Memo)
Rep. Josh Miller, recipient of significant government assistance, opposes Medicaid expansion in Arkansas (Arkansas Times)
Rep. Josh Miller gets national exposure on MSNBC as Medicaid expansion opponent (Arkansas Times)
Ending private option would take away coverage from 100,000 Arkansans, whether opponents like to admit that or not (Arkansas Times)
“Start with every person in America having a guest room in their open that is available for strangers.”
Um–yeah…when I read this, I thought this guy is really walking into it. David–really? Is this something YOU do? Are you leading by example? Then again, there are $1.5 -$3 million dollar homes sitting empty most of the year on Kiawah Island (substitute the name of other posh vacation spots)…how about those kind Americans stepping up and offering rooms in THOSE homes. Can you all just imagine how entertaining the response would be if that proposal get’s floated out there?
iconoclast wrote: “Is this something YOU do? Are you leading by example?”
Yes, I have done this for many years, and I have raised five children (three are still at home). I have taught them the importance of being given to hospitality toward strangers. Therefore, they had to share rooms while one room remained open for unexpected guests. It is not that hard to do if people just have a willing heart.
Start with every person in America having a guest room in their open that is available for strangers. Start with individuals feeding the hungry that they cross paths with.
You do that?
“Stop expecting others to do the job of helping others and start helping others yourself directly.”
davodm, I can only and by saying: “Stop forcing others to do the job of helping others and start helping others yourself directly.”
May this hypocrit’s wheelchair have an endless series of flat tires!! Nuf sed.
Why are there so many Americans with first name Josh? Fifty years ago there were none. Josh, Justin Bieber, Aaron Shootemup, … all these weenie first names.
This is one of the best articles on the blog ever.
davidm, if there were enough kindhearted individuals. I will gladly start believing this as soon as your check to me is in the mail. I would then gladly , cash it and send the money to one of the slaves working on one or other California farm or one cleaning the house of Josh Miller. With his kind of attitude I suspect he pays that person, well, slave wages.
davidm,
“Personally, I think there are enough kindhearted individuals that we don’t need government doing this stuff.”
… And under what rock can we find these ‘kindhearted folks’ that can manage the crises? One local church is going broke trying to help homeless eat. Another local church is in hot water for letting the homeless camp on their yard because the local community complains about the ‘image’ of homelessness. Another local church is a women’s shelter 5 days a week, used to be 7 days but due to cutbacks, the ladies get two nights on the street. NONE of these three churches can even afford health care for any homeless person. So what next? Just die, already?
Max-1 wrote: “One local church is going broke … Another local church is in hot water … Another local church … So what next? Just die, already?”
I think we focus too much on institutions like churches or government helping people rather than individuals helping one another. Start with every person in America having a guest room in their open that is available for strangers. Start with individuals feeding the hungry that they cross paths with. I’m not talking about just handing a dollar to the beggar, but putting your arm around that beggar and taking him or her to lunch. Engage in conversation and get involved in his or her life. Stop expecting others to do the job of helping others and start helping others yourself directly.
davidm,
“They falsely portray us Republicans as arms crossed naysayers who won’t cooperate with anything good.”
… I’ll let you argue that point with John Boehner.
How much did Jesus profit from his health care visits?
A Christian Nation? Hardly…
I never said why I’m opposed to ACA.
The middle man’s fat wallet!
nick spinelli,
Her experience of Socialism is far different than the GOP imagines it to be.
To define it as: “Paying into so that everyone can benefit” then Social Security is SOCIALISM!
So is local taxes raising money for PUBLIC SCHOOLS, and HIGHWAYS.
Something we all pay into and we all take from.
Walk the walk. If paying in and taking from is SOCIALISM, then take personal responsibility and STOP playing along. Demand to NOT have Social Security removed from your Federal Taxes… I don’t see that happening as there is not ONE TeaParty Corporation behind it. And as far as NOT collecting benefits, refuse the checks. Send them back!!! Take personal responsibility and stop playing along with the SOCIALISM EXPERIMENTS all together.
Cake and eat it, too?
Max-1 wrote: “If paying in and taking from is SOCIALISM, then take personal responsibility and STOP playing along. Demand to NOT have Social Security removed from your Federal Taxes…”
The problem is that we are put into prison for playing that way. Whether we like it or not, we are forced to play along. There really isn’t anything we can do about it. Our choice has been taken away. We have no liberty on this matter.
When I am allowed to take Social Security, of course I’m going to take the check. If I am forced to participate in the sacrifice, then I might as well also participate in the benefits. However, if by some miraculous event the Democrats agreed to abolish Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare, I would gladly vote for and support that, knowing that I would lose all benefits despite having paid into these programs for 40 years. If it allowed for a path of liberty and freedom for my children and future generations to determine their own future, that would be more important than any paycheck in my old age.
All the health care in the world will not help those individuals who refuse to heed the advice prescribed. Look around, talk to your friends, observe their actions, – are the heeding their provider advice ? If they are not – how do you feel about subsidized waste of time.
This guy looks like Jay Mohr’s chubby younger brother.
Max, Doesn’t the fact that a person from Russia is opposed to socialism tell you anything???
“Woulda, shoulda, coulda.” Obamacare is a billions of dollar’s boondoggle train wreck and ANY person intellectually honest will admit that.
to davidm2575:
Far more money is spent on corporate welfare than social welfare. If we cut the spigot flowing into the corporate welfare trough and protectionism for our Pharmaceutical companies, had a progressive tax system, and cared – as a society should- for those of our citizens who are struggling, we could afford adequate health care for all.
http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/the-cost-of-protectionism-in-pharmaceuticals/
(just two pieces worth perusing)
trish, corporate welfare includes things like PBS. The government has no business with corporate welfare whatsoever. In regards to social welfare, it should be somewhat limited so that it functions as a safety net and a help up. And government should never force medical care upon everyone because not everyone agrees with it.
There are quirks in Medicaid and Medicare. I have a family member who is on disability and is covered by Medicaid. She needed an operation that Medicaid wouldn’t cover; Medicare would cover it, but since she was a stay-at-home mom, raising kids and vegetables and caring for livestock, she hadn’t paid into SS, so she isn’t eligible for Medicare or SS until her former husband dies. In the end, she had to shop for a surgeon competent for the surgery and in a facility that she could “afford”. She borrowed from family members and repaid some of it with her inheritance from her mother. It was due to family, not the government or any insurance program that she is still with us.
annie,
Elaine M. is correct. This last Christmas I had a discussion with my conservative father (84), my conservative brother (53) and his Russian girlfriend (43). They hate ACA to the core. And I asked them why?
My father doesn’t need it. He’s covered w/ medicare. his premiums PLUS AARP cost him aprox. $240/mo. He dislikes the idea of mandating everyone ‘get’ covered.
My brother is a small business owner who has been supplying insurance for his employees. He didn’t even know his small business requirements were extended. He hates the costs his Russian girlfriend has to pay out of pocket because she’s self employed in the USA and she’s sending her 19 year old to private collage. She’s paying an increased premium and lost dental in the exchange.
My suggestion, single payer. All are against it… SOCIALISM!!!
I challenged them, “Then if co-paying into a large pot so that we can take from it when needed is called SOCIALISM, then I will assume that you, dad, aren’t collecting your Social Security and that you (brother) are refusing to pay into it?”
You all know their resounding answer is… “We paid into it!”
You know they refused to hear the part of everyone taking from Social Security, And you know they refused to hear the part about Medicare… “we paid into it” too.
Typical, “I have mine, you don’t get any,”
In other spheres in the Universe this is known simply as bat shit crazy selfishness.
Why the Health Care Law Scares the G.O.P.
By EDUARDO PORTER
Published: October 1, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/02/business/economy/why-the-health-care-law-scares-the-gop.html?_r=0
Excerpt:
This spring, the Missouri Chamber of Commerce urged the state Legislature to accept the federal government’s plan to expand Medicaid for the poor and disabled.
The business lobbying group had not suddenly gone rogue. Here is how Daniel P. Mehan, its president, summarized his feelings about President Obama’s health care law: “We don’t like it.”
But the Chamber was cognizant of the plea of its members directly affected by the issue: dozens of Missouri hospitals stood to lose $4.2 billion over six years in federal support for uncompensated care if the state refused to increase the income ceiling for Medicaid eligibility.
Pragmatism suggested accepting the expansion. Washington would pay the extra cost entirely for three years and pick up 90 percent of the bill thereafter.
And it would expand health coverage in the state’s poor, predominantly white rural counties, which voted consistently to put Republican lawmakers into office.
Missouri’s Republican-controlled Legislature — heavy with Tea Party stalwarts — rejected Medicaid’s expansion in the state anyway.
After their vote, a frustrated editorial in The Missourian, a faithfully conservative newspaper in Washington, Mo., asked of the state’s elected Republicans: “Who Do They Represent?”
Today, the same forces that blocked the expansion of Medicaid in Missouri are going all out in Washington in a bid to undo all of the Affordable Care Act. Bowing to the vehemence of its Tea Party faction, the House G.O.P. forced a government shutdown when Senate Democrats refused to delay or defund the president’s health overhaul.
House Republicans are threatening even further damage if they don’t get their way, possibly unleashing financial chaos if they manage to force the United States into its first default ever on the government’s debt.
Republicans’ efforts raise the same perplexing question posed by The Missourian: What drives Tea Party Republicans and their financial backers? What calculation persuades them that repealing the health care law is worth the risk? Indeed, whose interests do they represent?
Nearly 6 in 10 Americans disapprove of trying to stop the law by cutting its financing. Even among those who don’t like the law, less than half want their representatives in Congress to try to make it fail.
It is tempting to discard the Tea Party activists driving the Republican Party as crazy — as some commentators have — motivated by fear and willing to believe that default won’t cause much harm and might even act as a purgative to free the economy of a bloated government.
“They listen to nobody but themselves,” the Harvard political scientist Theda Skocpol told me. “They are convinced of their rectitude and convinced that they alone are qualified to save America from the dire threat of Obama and his polices. They have worked themselves into a dangerous place.”