Indiana Will Enforce Illegal Law To Defund Planned Parenthood, May Lose All Medicaid Funds

By Tanya Somanader

In the race to be the first, the Indiana GOP plowed through common sense and internal opposition to pass a law stripping Planned Parenthood of public funding. When signing the bill, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) said non-abortion services would “remain readily available” from other providers. In reality, by signing the law, Daniels jeopardized federal funding for all family planning and health care providers and, as a result, access to health care for thousands of low-income Hoosiers.

Because the law bans Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds in Indiana, it violatesa federal law that prevents any state from denying payment to health care clinics that provide a “constitutionally protected service.” Finding Indiana in blatant violation of this law, the U.S Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Don Berwick rejected the law and notified the state that it may lose “all federal funding of its Medicaid program.” But rather than reconsider the drastic move, Indiana will “defy” CMS and continue to implement the law:

Indiana plans to defy an Obama administration letter and continue barring Planned Parenthood from receiving federal funding — a move that, if continued, could cost the state more than $4 billion in Medicaid funds. [...]

The Indiana Family and Social Services Administration plans to continue implementing the legislation, signed by Gov. Mitch Daniels last month, that defunded Planned Parenthood.

“For now, our lawyers advise us that we must continue to follow the law the Indiana General Assembly passed,” says Marcus Barlow, director of communications for FSSA. “We will seek guidance from the attorney general on how to proceed going forward.”

A CMS source told Politico that “the entirety of Indiana’s federal Medicaid funding” is at stake should they violate federal law. Last year, Indiana received $4.3 billion in federal funding which “accounts for about two-thirds of the state’s $5.9 billion Medicaid budget.” About $3 million of that funding goes to Indiana’s 28 Planned Parenthood clinics, which, according to Planned Parenthood of Indiana, served about 9,300 low-income patients last year. Of these clinics, only four provide abortion services. What’s more, only 3 percent of their services involve abortions. In going to such an extreme to prohibit one group’s rare practice of a constitutionally protected service, Indiana is imperiling the health care of a great number of Hoosiers to make a political point.

Of course, for many in the GOP, the evisceration of Medicaid seems to be an end goal. At the beginning of this year, GOP governors sought leeway to cut down on their Medicaid rollsthrough exemption from the health care reform law. House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget plan seemed to deliver by turning Medicaid into a block grant program, effectively allowing states to cut eligibility and provide less coverage. Idaho Gov. Butch Otter (R) took matters into his own hands and signed an executive order in April that will essentially end Medicaid in his state.

But, as Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards notes, CMS’s rebuke “serves as a warningto other states” considering a similar ploy with Medicaid. While Kansas, North Carolina, andTexas are toying with similar legislation, Tennessee has already “backed off attempts to defund Planned Parenthood specifically because of concerns over constitutionality.”

Gov. Christie Thinks A Family Making $6,000 A Year Is Too Rich To Qualify For Medicaid

By Marie Diamond

Despite recent polls that show Americans are just as protective of Medicaid as they are of Medicare, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) is trying to gut the popular program in his state and prevent 23,000people from receiving benefits. Christie has proposedcutting Medicaid eligibility to absurdly low levels: from the current maximum income of $24,645 to $5,317 a year for a family of three. Apparently, the governor believes a family of three making $6,000 a year is simply too rich to receive Medicaid.

The New Jersey press has reported that the main effect of his proposal would be to slash help for the working poor, tearing a huge hole in the state’s social safety net:

Adults in a family of three that makes as little as $103 a week would earn too much to qualify for health care provided by Medicaid under a sharply curtailed program Gov. Chris Christie wants the federal government to approve this year, according to state officials and advocates briefed on the proposal.[...]

The Christie administration is expected to propose cutting the maximum income level of Medicaid from $24,645 to $5,317 a year for a family of three [...]

“That is about a third of the poverty level,” Castro said. “That means that an uninsured parent working full time at a minimum-wage job wouldn’t be eligible. … A parent who works half-time for minimum wage wouldn’t even qualify.

“Unfortunately, the only way these parents can become eligible for health coverage in the future is if the parent applies for and is eligible for welfare,” Castro added. “That sends the wrong message.”

Democratic lawmakers are furious that Christie is insisting on making $300 million in cuts on the backs of poor and disabled residents. They point out that apart from the morally bankrupt idea of denying care to the neediest population, having more people uninsured will ultimately be more costly for New Jersey.

“Those 23,000 people are going to get sick this year,” said Louis Greenwald (D), a committee chairman. “Where are you suggesting they’re going to go?”

State Sen. Joseph Vitale (D), who sponsored the legislation creating FamilyCare in 1998,explained, “This completely dismantles the progress made over the last 12 years, and then some…I can’t imagine how it could be any worse.”

Since Medicaid — which provides health care services to at-risk populations including the indigent, blind and disabled — is jointly funded by the federal government, states must apply for a waiver before making major changes. That means Obama administration officials can still block Christie’s radical attempts to curtail enrollment.

House Republicans Pass Plan To Phase Out Medicare, Slash Medicaid

Brian Beutler

House Republicans voted Friday in favor of a vision of the future without Medicare, with a significantly eroded Medicaid, and with lower taxes on wealthy Americans. By a vote of 235-193, they passed their budget resolution -- an opening bid in a broader partisan fight about spending and taxes that will dominate politics in Washington, DC for the rest of the year.

Four Republicans voted with all Democrats against the so-called "Path to Prosperity." Two Republicans and five Democratsdidn't vote.

It's also political poison. The GOP plan would slowly phase out the current Medicare system and replace it by offering beneficiaries partially subsidized private insurance (ironically, much like Obamacare). It would turn Medicaid into a block-grant program, allowing states to roll back currently guaranteed benefits for the poor and disabled. And it would eliminate most of the savings achieved from cutting these entitlements lowering the tax burden on wealthy Americans.

It was almost worse. Earlier in the day, Republicans fell prey to a Democratic procedural tactic and nearly voted to replace the plan they passed with an even farther-reaching one. Republicans didn't whip any of the alternative budgets, and were caught flat-footed when Democrats voted "present" on a more conservative proposal, leading to pandemonium on the House floor.

As an early salvo in his re-election fight, President Obama criticized Republicans for creating the looming fiscal crisis with reckless policies in the last decade, and for proposing to fix it on the backs of the most vulnerable Americans

"We contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, those with disabilities. We're a better country because of these commitments," Obama said. "I'll go further. We would not be a great country without those commitments."

Though the budget has no future in the Senate, House Republicans have put themselves on the line for a political whipping as severe the one they received when they tried to privatize Social Security in 2005.

House Republicans propose deep cuts to Medicare

By Sahil Kapur

WASHINGTON – House Republicans will Tuesday unveil a long-term budget plan that essentially privatizes Medicare, a move that is sure to draw ire from progressives on Capitol Hill.

The proposal, authored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI), aims to cut $4 trillion in federal spending over ten years, in part by ending Medicare as we know it for Americans who are currently under the age of 55.

Those nearing retirement within the next 10 years will be covered by single-payer program, which pays the medical expenses of seniors. The rest would have to choose from a series of private insurance plans to cover them when they turn 65, according to previews of the proposal. The federal government would pay roughly the first $15,000 in costs; after that, they're on their own.

"There is nobody saying that Medicare can stay in its current path," Ryan said on Fox News Sunday. "We should not be measuring ourselves against some mythical future of Medicare that isn't sustainable."

The proposal also cuts Medicaid, which helps pay health care expenses for low-income Americans. Currently a joint program run by the federal government and states, the Ryan plan would turn it into a series of block grants for states, considerably reducing benefits.

House progressives declined to comment on the plan as it had not been officially unveiled, but it's certain to bring about a rancorous debate over whether to balance the budget by cutting into the safety net. Though both parties agree that health care costs are a major driver of federal spending, liberals have argued that seniors and low-income people should not have to pick up the tab for a deficit caused largely by tax cuts, two unfunded wars and a recession.

A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found Monday that 76 percent of Americans consider it unacceptable to cut Medicare, while 67 oppose cutting Medicaid, despite their deficit concerns.