Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor
Last week, I wrote a post about Josh Miller (Not All Needy People Are As Deserving As Others), a young Republican state legislator from Heber Springs, Arkansas. Miller, who was paralyzed more than a decade ago in a catastrophic car accident, has been able to live a productive life due to the medical benefits he has received from both Medicare and Medicaid. Yet, this young state senator has spoken out against Medicaid expansion in Arkansas. Some of us find his stance on this issue to be hypocritical.
This past Tuesday, lawmakers in Arkansas voted to continue allowing the state “to use Medicaid dollars to buy private health-care insurance for poorer residents, overcoming resistance from some Republicans who said the program amounted to an endorsement of the Affordable Care Act.” According to the Wall Street Journal, Arkansas became the first state “to offer a ‘private option’ to extend coverage to lower-income residents…” Supporters of the program saw the private option “as a way to accept federal dollars and cut the number of uninsured residents without enlarging Medicaid.”
Matt Campbell of Blue Hog Report said that when he heard about the legislature’s vote to fund the private option for another fiscal year he “halfheartedly hoped that the extra ‘yes’ vote might have been Rep. Josh Miller.” Such was not the case however. What Campbell said he finds most hypocritical and troubling about Miller’s “no” vote on the private option is that the young lawmaker actually used his position as a legislator “to make blatantly self-serving changes to the Medicaid law” which would make it easier for him to get the same coverage that he “would deny to others.” Campbell says that Miller was a main sponsor in 2013 of Act 1048. That Act changes how Arkansas law defines a person’s eligibility for receiving Medicaid.
Eligibility prior to ACT 1048:
an individual who meets the disability assets and unearned income standards to receive supplemental security income, who would be considered to be receiving supplemental security income benefits but for his or her earned income, and whose net combined family income is less than two hundred fifty percent (250%) of the federal poverty guideline. Miller’s bill eligibility change:
How Miller’s bill would change eligibility:
an individual who meets the disability assets and unearned income standards to receive supplemental security income, who would be considered to be receiving supplemental security income benefits but for his or her earned income, and whose net combined family income is less than two hundred fifty percent (250%) of the federal poverty guideline.
Campbell claimed that “while lawmakers and policy wonks were arguing over the propriety of expanding Medicaid in general to include non-disabled adults making up to 138% of the federal poverty line, Rep. Miller was working to ensure that, no matter how much money he might make, he could never lose his sweet, sweet government-funded insurance.” Campbell said that Miller didn’t stop at that, though. He said that Act 1048 also changes “Arkansas Code Annotated 20-77-1204 regarding the administration of Medicaid for ‘Low-Income Disabled Working Persons.’” He said Miller’s bill also added 1204(c), which states:
A rule adopted under this section shall not include a test for income, assets, or resources.
Campbell added that while 1204(b)(2) “explicitly requires DHS to adopt rules that establish ‘premium and cost-sharing charges on a sliding scale based on income’… thanks to Rep. Miller, DHS cannot actually include any kind of means testing in those rules…”
It certainly does appear that Josh Miller thinks that not all needy people in Arkansas are as deserving of Medicaid benefits as is he. It appears that he truly is a hypocrite too.
~ 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
The Disgustingly Self-Serving Hypocrisy of Rep. Josh Miller (Blue Hog Report)
Arkansas Lawmakers Pass ‘Private Option’ Health-Care Law: Program Allows State to Use Medicaid Dollars to Buy Private Health-care Insurance for Some (Wall Street Journal)
Not All Needy People Are As Deserving As Others: Paralyzed Arkansas Lawmaker Who Receives Medicaid Benefits Opposes Medicaid Expansion in His State (Res Ipsa Loquitor)
Great discussion, Ladies. Let do it again soon.
not Fox News, the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, etc.
One last word to Justin, you are not alone in that you condsider yourself American first and foremost. So do most Americans, believe it or not, you are not unique in that regard.
the jury is still out on Benghazi and the IRS. I’m going to wait and see what the final decision is from the U.S. Congress.
I didn’t specify, but still your blind ignorance confused it with Obama. Just another example of what I am talking about.
Justin, you expressed concern that Presidents should not be elected by Electoral college. You did not specify it was only the 2000 elections you were referring to.
http://www.nytimes.com/projects/2013/benghazi/#/?chapt=0
Here’s what happened in Benghazi, not Fox but pretty darn good reporting.
How you got that confused with Obama’s election I’ll never know.
annieofwi: you continue to twist my words. My reference to the Electoral College was about the 2000 election when George W. Bush did not receive the majority vote but won because of the electoral college votes.
We seem to be spinning our wheels here. Sean Hannity is a partisan, I never said otherwise. For all the reason I’ve just outlined, Fox News just happens to represent for me what is in the best interest of my country. Your attack on Fox News is a us vs. them mentality. You don’t like Fox News just change the channel. I don’t watch MSNBC because I do not agree with their views on what is best for America. It is a purely personal decision that I have a right to make as an American and so do you.
Justin,
First suggestion. Stop watching Fox News. Second suggestion, check out Benghazi yourself and you will see that Fox New’s has been pushing a non-scandal and the same is true for the IRS. The IRS have been targeting both conservative and progressive 501c4 groups. But you will not hear that from Fox News.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/who-won-the-popular-vote-2012_n_2087038.html
Obama won the popular vote as well as the Electoral College. Am I wrong?
Justin, I’d like some examples of how Sean Hannity isn’t a partisan? Can you post some examples of how Sean Hannity represents views that are in the best interest of America and aren’t slanted either to the right or left? Why do you think he is more trustworthy and a better journalist than Rachel Maddow for instance?
The Vast Anti-Conservative IRS Conspiracy Targeted Liberal Groups, Too
By Adam Martin
6/25/13
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/06/irs-targeted-liberal-groups-for-scrutiny-too.html
Excerpt:
The narrative of an anti-right-wing conspiracy behind the IRS’s heightened scrutiny of groups with words such as “Tea Party” and “patriots” in their names is so attractive that many on the right embraced it even when the evidence didn’t really back it up. Some, such as Tea Party protesters and Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, have continued to do so. But the IRS’s latest reveal on Monday, that its “be on the lookout” words included such left-wing hallmarks as “progressive,” “blue,” and “occupy,” undercuts that narrative. In fact, it’s led to new questions from Democrats over why the audit that broke the scandal in the first place didn’t mention any BOLO words except the right-wing ones.
The agency’s release Monday of documents showing the wider scope of its BOLO lists came with an assurance from acting commissioner Daniel Werfel that it would stop using those lists to flag groups for review. The BOLO words had been in use as recently as this month, the New York Times reported. The instructions in the lists illustrate how the agency was using some of the various key words as shortcuts to identify 501(c)(4) groups. The organizations’ tax-exempt status depends on them operating primarily as social welfare groups, with politicking making up no more than 40 percent of their activity.
Elaine M.: Let me give you an example of what I’m asking: I voted for Ross Perot in the 90s. I voted for Ralph Nader in the 2000 election. I’m outraged that the President of the United States is NOT elected by popular vote but instead by the dinosaur know as the Electoral College. I’m not a Democrat. I’m not a Republican. I am always an American. I lean toward Fox News because they are leading the fight to find out what happened in Benghazi and what happened with the IRS targeting conservative groups. That’s a first amendment, free speech issue. Fox News covers it better than any other news program.
Justin,
“But because your mind as been programmed in terms of them versus us, you keep going back to Republicans vs. Democrats.”
*****
Wrong. I provided links to prove that–unlike Rep. Miller–many Republicans support Medicaid expansion in their states. You have closed your mind. You read everything I posted here as “us against them.” That’s your mindset–not mine.
Justin,
“Elaine M. You make my point. You can give 100 examples of what this video demonstrates. I can give you 100 examples to discount it.”
*****
Be my guest.
Give me some objective examples of what you would suggest can be done that is in the best interest of America, not a Democratic vs. Republican position.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, that was DE-LISH-US: 2 Big Macs, large fries, large drink and 2 chocolate sundaes. Now I’m ready for political warfare.
Elaine M. You make my point. You can give 100 examples of what this video demonstrates. I can give you 100 examples to discount it. My point is we need to start thinking in terms as what is in the best interest of America, our country that I’m sure we both love. But because your mind as been programmed in terms of them versus us, you keep going back to Republicans vs. Democrats. Your trapped.
Justin,
In car on cell.
You have been well programmed and have memorized all key talking points. All those in charge of rw propaganda are proud of themselves and laughing at your naiveté.
Fortunately our younger generation is well versed in critical thinking and ignore fox and those like you.
You are unable or unwilling to adapt to our changing society and will ultimately go the way of dinosaurs. Your view of life is archaic and doomed to failure
Sean Hannity’s Breathtaking Hypocrisy on NSA Surveillance
6/13/13
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/sean_hannitys_breathtaking_hypocrisy_on_nsa_surveillance_20130613
How does Sean Hannity feel about the federal government collecting information on millions of Americans? Well, that depends. According to clips compiled by Media Matters, the Fox News host’s position regarding government surveillance is evidently based entirely on who happens to be occupying the Oval Office at the time.
For example, Hannity called the recent revelation about the extent of National Security Agency surveillance programs under Democratic President Barack Obama a “very clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.” But when President George W. Bush was in power, the conservative commentator seemed to have no problem with the NSA gathering data on Americans. In fact, he was a staunch defender of the practice during the Dubya years.
Hannity Then and Now on NSA Surveillance