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)
Stalkers are not a good thing, ask my family!
Are stalkers a good thing? Homophones are good things.
And if anyone thinks I’m an official anything here they’re delusional. I’m just supporting Mr. Turley’s rules. Other’s are free to not support them. But all must respect them.
Hi, I am new here. I love homophones, can you share more with us?
Then again, maybe a stalker? Doesn’t matter, all are welcome as long as they’re civil.
Now see, Elaine, an anonymous troll just stirred the pot as I was typing. Sounds like an Old Timer.
I was doing what Mr. Turley and any good blogger wants, providing a perspective. Ed Schultz and Hannity are very similar. I simply pointed out the fact that when you sit in the middle, as do I, you can see the it clearly. I pointed it out to Mike succinctly and civilly. No where, as your curious question asks, did I even IMPLY anyone had sung the praises of Ed Schultz. That said, I would bet big money there are fans of Ed Schultz here.
The macro issue is that for a long time folks on the left DOMINATED this blog and some did so in a very hostile way. Any Fox News viewer had epithets thrown at them. A guy like Justin would have been driven away and the thugs would have been beating their chests. I fully realize some here wax poetic about those glory days. Well, they’re over. And any progressive would be looking forward. I LOVE that new people are coming and some that were driven away are returning. This is a civil place now. Finally, stirring the pot is a good thing. When I make marinara I stir it often. Otherwise is burns and sucks.
I am confused about the civility rules and Nick enforcing them. Was nick made the official overlord of this space? If so, I will find another place to occupy.
He is creepy talking about girls underware, does he have identified issues that need to be dealt with?
Perhaps he takes in too much of the Voda! Salute.
nick,
You said: “My questioning the reading ability was warranted based on the lets say, less than intelligent question posed regarding Ed Schultz.”
*****
It wasn’t a “less than intelligent question.” Someone brought up Sean Hannity as a good source of news. No one claimed Ed Schultz was a go to source for news on this thread. It seems to me you’ve been trying to stir up the pot…once again.
Honestly, this is getting out of control again. Allegations, snooping, snide underhanded coded comments, assertions made regarding other commenters professional credentials, violating the civility rule and then having the unmitigated gall to constantly quote the civility rule.
The profanity was not directed @ anyone. Do I need to diagram the sentence for you? Profanity is not banned, and it is not uncivil unless specifically directed @ a person. I use profanities as adjectives, for the most part. Plus, the redaction made it Kosher for wordpress. My questioning the reading ability was warranted based on the lets say, less than intelligent question posed regarding Ed Schultz. I did not call anyone a hate monger. Hate is writing vile comments on my wife’s Amazon pages. There is stalking hate from a depraved mind. Read that if you want to see how some people use anonymity, so they think anyway.
Now, if you were offended, Elaine, I apologize. I don’t suffer, let’s than intelligent questions, well. That’s on me. Let us not fall back to the dark days. The best way to avoid that is to end it here.
Elaine, the one who is constantly bringing up the civility code seems to be the worst offender. Odd that he seems to think HE is exempt.
My…what happened to the civility code? Using profane language, implying that others don’t know how to read, calling other people “hate-mongers.” And some people think it’s only women who are tedious and childish????? The more things change…the more they stay the same.
Who is constantly talking about underwear?? I believe it’s the first time I’ve ever mentioned underwear. What a strange comment.
Constantly talking about underwear is creepy, and sometimes a sign of serious issues.
Bron, Did you see Kudlow got shitcanned. I like him.
Did anyone on this thread sing the praises of Ed Schultz?
nick:
Ed Schultz and his followers are all that stand between freedom and free market capitalism.
It’s amusing to see dyed in the wool conservatives wearing the libertarian cloak. Doesn’t change the fact that they are still wearing the conservative long johns underneath. I get it though, those woollies itch and are not the most comfortable thing to wear next to the skin.
Mike, Sounds like Ed Schultz also. You see, I see the bozos on BOTH sides, being on neither side. I enjoy that clarity.