Funny, how you only hear this when the group that they’re against is getting assistance.
Nine most terrifying words? Well, not so much in Mississippi these days. Just look at the insurer-provider dispute in Mississippi.
In the dispute between a big insurer and a hospital group in Mississippi how can you possibly be concerned with “the patients that Blue Cross insures and these hospitals serve” and refuse Medicaid expansion? How can you not see the connection? Absence of Medicaid expansion in Mississippi will drive up medical costs to Mississippians relative to other states. The cost of not getting preventative treatment and health maintenance drives the cost up for everyone by channeling impoverished people into the emergency rooms for more expensive care. That cost doesn’t just disappear but is passed on to other consumers through higher costs which they pay via higher premiums and higher co-pays and deductibles. Of course the insurance industry operating in Mississippi would move to cut out the more expensive hospitals; they have stock prices and shareholders to worry about. Conspicuous by their absence once again is the Mississippi Heritage Foundation doppelganger, the Mississippi Center for Public Policy. Where were the faux-limited government proponents advocating unfettered markets? It’s funny how you didn’t hear them complain about the governor issuing an order which “would have required Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mississippi [a private entity] to resume paying in-network rates at Mississippi hospitals.” Not really when you realize that, despite what the Tea Party-types profess, they are in favor of limited government only if it doesn’t affect their comrades or people who lobby for laws that increase the corporate profits out of which their financial support comes. If Mississippi politicians can spend so much time and effort trying to make sure that the federal government keeps maintaining military installations and spending that produce a net inflow of federal dollars to Mississippi then it doesn’t make any sense to try and stop the federal government from helping Mississippi defray the state’s overall healthcare costs on the grounds that you don’t believe in government involvement in the free market. Channeling government spending into arguably unnecessary military spending or at best spending that is not efficient because of the economic impact to a given state, say Mississippi, is an admission that the government does create jobs and that it is desirable for the government to do so. Even Ronald Reagan acknowledged the military as an employment source and favored including the military in employment figures. And from a fiscal standpoint, pretending that expansion of Medicaid is detrimental to Mississippi’s budget is to bury one’s head in the sand.
The cost of medical care in Mississippi will not decrease because Medicaid is not expanded, the costs will actually rise faster because of the absence of the benefits of expansion. The truth is Mississippians’ insurance premiums will be higher than they would have been under expansion and the medical infrastructure will be more overwhelmed because Mississippi is refusing federal aid, in a move that befits a continuation of the secessionist impulse, an impulse which operates to the creation and maintenance of huge wealth gaps. And the crack, about Mississippians not looking for work because the government is providing healthcare, is a reflection of the neo-feudalist nature of some Mississippi politicians. They would rather have citizens tied to employers because of healthcare than to have them be truly free to start their own businesses, then to see a “thousand flowers bloom.” There is one report which “finds that up to nearly 1 million workers may voluntarily leave their jobs because of the new health care law.”
They, the Crypto-Fascists, would rather the average citizen be constrained in such a way that they, average Mississippians, have to look up to and be beholding to corporate interest in a way that lets corporations place greater and greater controls on citizens. You see this manifested in things like Mississippi politicians’ (Crypto-Fascists’) participation in and defense of organizations like ALEC which brought Mississippi, through Joey Filingane, the photo ID law, which constricts democratic participation. The less-government, less-regulation crowd is actually an anti-democratic cabal which orchestrates the development and maintenance of monopolies. Anti-democratic forces don’t really believe that “[t]he antitrust laws reflect our society’s belief that competition enhances consumer welfare and promotes our economic and political freedoms.” They actually believe in tying people to employers in a slave or share-cropper fashion. With people so tied to an employer, how likely are they to vote in a way with which their employers disagree? This is a very real way in which something as simple as the denial of healthcare access UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY!!! Mississippi where sine qui non for political success is a simple as opposing anything related to Obama, it’s relatively easy, also given Mississippi’s neo-feudal, plantation-heritage (see flag vote)-loving past, to propose things which support plutocracy or oligarchy.
Additionally, on the subject of the rejection of democracy, widely-dispersed opportunity and equality, no one ever seems to even consider how the linkage of healthcare to existing businesses (getting insurance through your employer) may stifle competition by reducing the number of entrepreneurs thereby driving up consumer costs because of lack of competitors or of alternative products related to the inhibition of innovation. It is an intuitive design, this strategy of opposing the Affordable Care Act; forcing labor into existing businesses to obtain healthcare dovetails so nicely with right-to-work-for-less laws. Employers can reduce pay by offering insurance and reduce the number of competitors simultaneously. This is something which may be good for the existing employers but can’t be good for consumers or labor in the long run. The first order of business for CONservatives is to make certain that challenges to the existing economic kingpins are few or non-existent. Anything from unions to healthcare which threatens that imperative must be utterly crushed. When people like Dwayne Blaylock, president and CEO of River Oaks says “communities need protection and patients need access to the health care professionals of their choice,“ you have to wonder if they ever think about what repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act would mean for patient choice and for costs and consider that “[tlo the extent that insurance companies engage in anticompetitive collusion . . . then they appropriately [should] be subject to antitrust liability.]” But something tells me that being the CEO of a hospital means that his imperative, like the big insurers, is also something other than patient protection and universal access to any health care professionals much less the “professionals of their choice.” In this system patient choice is a sales tool which like patient protection is a means to an end. And in Mississippi because of resistance to things like Medicaid expansion, a physician, in many cases, doesn’t have to be concerned with first, doing no harm; sick people without access means that first, they do nothing at all.