Texas is not alone

Carl Parker

On a recent visit to watch my granddaughter graduate from high school, I had occasion to spend a few days in Michigan. In some ways, I discovered Michigan resembles Texas as far as state governance is concerned. Both houses of the legislature are Republican, as is each state’s governor.

Fortunately for Texas, we are somewhat better off financially than the state of Michigan. But as to uninsured citizens of the state who are without adequate health care, we differ only in the number of uninsured citizens. While Michigan estimates it has 450,000 uninsured citizens, Texas is estimated to have in excess of a million.

Apparently, Gov. Rick Perry thinks it’s just fine to continue to have a substantial number of children in Texas rely on the emergency room as their first option for health care. While Gov. Perry brags continually about the low tax rate in Texas, he fails to mention that every time an uninsured citizen of Texas seeks treatment in an emergency room, it adds an additional burden to the citizens of this state who do in fact pay for insurance or pay for care at the various hospitals throughout the state. Estimates of this cost, which is shared by all Texas residents, has escalated to the neighborhood of $20 billion a year.

In spite of the size of the problem, the governors of both Michigan and Texas have refused to participate in the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, which would provide Texas with billions of dollars with which to alleviate much human suffering, particularly for children in our state. What’s worse, Gov. Perry appeared to resist any effort to formulate compromise strategies that might have alleviated the problem for many Texas citizens.

Even the Michigan Republican legislature is making an effort to find a compromise that will allow the state to take advantage of at least a large portion of the assistance from the federal government. The plan in Michigan accepts federal funding but builds in safeguards. Should the federal assistance be diminished or stopped, able-bodied citizens of Michigan without insurance or other coverage would be required to pay up to 7 percent of whatever income they had to remain on any federally subsidized health insurance program for the poor, or they would be required to purchase federally subsidized private insurance. This would assure that even if the Affordable Care Act ceased to operate as intended, the state of Michigan would not have to bear the burden of continued health care alone.

It is obvious Gov. Perry wants to burnish his credentials as one of the most conservative governors in the nation, but he should not want to do it at the expense of sick children. It seems any humane conservative would want to explore alternatives rather than simply turning a blind eye to the billions of dollars available through a federal program, or a deaf ear to the pleadings of many medical experts, as well as Texans who are in need of adequate health care coverage.



The only problem with

The only problem with expanding the Medicaid program in Texas is who is going to pay for it when the federal government stops it contributions later on. That would be the tax payers in Texas. A study in Oregon has shown that Medicaid increased emergency room use. The exact opposite of what was promised by the current administration. This will increase the cost to everybody in the long run.

Carl Parker's blurb

Balderdash Mr. Parker, simply balderdash. Your viewpoint is stilted, tilted, and bitter. like your(not mine)president said: "Some folks have made just too much money". Drift off into your dreary world and don't write anything else, it is a waste of a good paper. Mr. Dodd can use the space to enlighten us further on your Teachers' Union thugs activities in BISD. No one else will carry the load.

Texas is not alone

One of the things so many conservatives do not understand, in my opinion, is that even those of us who work hard for a living can not afford health care. They seem to think that only those who don't work or can't work have a problem getting affordable health care. It is not that way at all. To afford health care from my job, I would have to pay more than 3/4 of my paycheck to insurance. That leaves me very little to live on. Food and shelter are higher priorities. When our health care is more expensive than we can afford, there is something wrong with the system. Just because you can afford insurance doesn't mean we all can. And that is what is wrong with the conservatives. They do not see beyond their own need and see that there are those, even in your own party, that have good jobs but overly expensive insurance. No one should have to choose between medical care and food and shelter. But we do. Every single day. And by the way, we pay taxes too. I am sure that our taxes cover a lot of the things the conservatives think are important that never gets to benefit the people.

health care

I am paying $600 dollars a month. and &$1,275 deductable for my spouse to have insurance. Because of OBAMA care. The insurance companies are $C%ewing us. So take car of that. Or more people will be uninsured. because I am going to have to drop it so I can pay for food & utilities.

Texas is not alone

If I ever find a Democrat that doesn't break out the "on the backs of our sick children" BS... I think I'll die.

There's a huge difference in not having health insurance and not having health CARE!

And whether they go to the ER or get Obamacare... it's the tax payer that will be paying for it.


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.