Posted on 05/29/2005 4:13:56 PM PDT by MissouriConservative
From fewer patients on Medicaid to less regulation of your electricity bill, Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt is making good on his promise of a government that does less.
In the legislative session that just ended, social services and mental health programs shrank, economic development funding was cut and higher-education spending dropped. Many programs, including education programs at three prisons and management of motor vehicle offices, will be taken over by private contractors or volunteers — or eliminated entirely.
Power companies will be able to pass their fuel costs to customers without seeking approval from state regulators. And insurance companies will no longer have to worry that complaints about their underwriting practices or refusal to pay claims will be available to the public.
For advocates of mental health programs and social services, the change in state government since Blunt took office in January has been stunning.
“The expectations have changed,” said Kirsten Dunham, associate policy director for Paraquad Inc., a St. Louis group that lobbies for the disabled. “It’s become a triage approach. We have to determine what services really are life and death and try to preserve those.”
The health-care cuts are merely the most visible and emotional changes in a far-reaching new approach to government.
Mark Rushefsky, a political scientist at Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield, said the new policies represent a move away from the idea of shared action to deal with common concerns, whether for the poor and disabled or for consumers generally. They are steps toward what President Bush calls “the ownership society.”
“The ownership society means you’re on your own,” Rushefsky said. “It is moving away from the idea of collective responsibility for health care or income maintenance. You see this in the private sector with the decline in private pensions.”
The result, he said, is an increase in the average person’s risk as both public and private programs are unraveled.
“The future will be more uncertain as people rely more on their own resources,” Rushefsky said. “On Medicaid, Blunt is out there in front. But his overall policy reflects a reduction of the safety-net philosophy.”
Sen. Delbert Scott, a Lowry City Republican, said the new approach represented the biggest change in Missouri government in 20 years. New laws to limit lawsuits and cap damage awards, new restrictions on workers’ compensation claims and the reductions in Medicaid will combine to encourage greater self-reliance, he said.
Dependence on government has become so widespread, he said, that even suburban areas have large numbers of people on Medicaid, which is supposed to help the poor.
“The general public is outraged,” Scott said, “by able-bodied people taking advantage of Medicaid, especially when it’s a multigenerational thing.”
Republicans in the legislature have been itching to make many of the changes for years, he said. But they backed off because former Gov. Bob Holden, a Democrat, would veto them.
The 2004 election not only put a Republican in the governor’s office for the first time in 12 years, but also increased the Republican majority in the House and Senate, giving the GOP control over all three power centers for the first time since 1922.
Blunt responded with an aggressive agenda to downsize Missouri government.
After expanding health-care programs for the poor, the disabled and moderate-income children from 1998 to 2001, Missouri trimmed services in recent years. But when lawmakers this year voted to eliminate health-care coverage for 90,604 low-income persons beginning July 1 and to raise out-of-pocket costs for 15,723 elderly and disabled persons, it was an abrupt change in direction.
The effect on social service advocates was most apparent in the battle to preserve Medicaid coverage for the disabled. Under current law, disabled people qualify with income up to the federal poverty level, or $798 a month.
House Republicans proposed dropping the maximum income to 74 percent of the poverty level, or $590 a month.
The final budget set the limit at 85 percent of poverty, or $678 a month. Advocates rejoiced that several thousand people would retain medical coverage. But they recognized how low their expectations had become.
“Why are we being thankful for these little crumbs?” asked Pam Schantz Rich of Citizens for Missouri’s Children. “We need to make things right with the health-care delivery system in this state. The system simply needs more revenue.”
Dunham, the Paraquad advocate, said those lowered expectations reflect the fact that Republicans will not support a tax increase.
“If we do have a responsibility to care for each other, paying taxes is an organized way to do that,” Dunham said. “But there is a lack of connection and a lack of appreciation that what happens to your neighbor does affect you. It may take these kinds of cuts before people become aware of that.”
Tennessee is the only other state this year that addressed the rising costs of health care by eliminating coverage for large numbers of people.
Tennessee, which for years touted its TennCare program as a model for the nation, plans to end coverage for at least 225,000 people next year. Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen said his state could no longer afford an $8 billion program that covers 1.3 million people.
Blunt used the same argument to justify reductions in Missouri’s $5.8 billion program, which had grown to cover 1 million people.
Laura Tobler, health policy analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures, said other states had taken steps to stretch their Medicaid dollars rather than reduce eligibility.
They instituted small co-payments for Medicaid clients and froze fees to providers. They eliminated some optional services and capped the number of prescriptions or therapy sessions.
In Kansas, no effort was made to reduce eligibility for Medicaid or to scale back programs for the disabled. The big debate was how to eliminate waiting lists for many Medicaid services.
Former Missouri state Rep. Marsha Campbell of Kansas City, once the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, criticized Blunt’s policies as a meat-ax approach to social services.
Republicans, she said, have grossly underestimated the effect of their policies on hospitals, rural residents’ access to health care and the long-term costs of moving people from home-based care to nursing homes.
But others consider the changes more incremental than radical. According to Rick Hardy, a political scientist at the University of Missouri-Columbia and a former Republican candidate for Congress, the biggest difference is who has access to the governor.
“Government is not neutral,” Hardy said. “Outcomes represent the groups with access to government. Groups like the Farm Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce and small-business groups now have access. Groups like abortion-rights supporters, mental health advocates and social services don’t have that effective access that they used to.”
Dunham, however, said Blunt could be blazing a path for conservatives in other states.
“Missouri is a laboratory,” Dunham said. “If Missouri gets away with these cuts, it will be a sign of what the public everywhere will accept.”
A governor doing exactly what he was elected to do? Can you believe that?
Maybe those in the Senate in Washington D.C. can learn a thing or two from this article?
You know more Missouri folk on here than I do bump.
hope he runs for pres at some point. bump.
If he keeps doing this, exactly what he said he would do, I can see him running. But we get to keep him for two terms as governor before the country gets him.
He has a lot of work to undo from one term Bob.
I live in Kansas City, Missouri. Up until now there has been no accountablity or means testing in the Medicare program. I think it is a step in the right direction.
It's funny, on the immigration threads, there are scores of comments about immigrants turning the U.S.A into Mexico, but this is surely modeled after Mexico City, and few will even complain.
“Missouri is a laboratory,” Dunham said. “If Missouri gets away with these cuts, it will be a sign of what the public everywhere will accept.”
Let's hope so, and let's hope that the Show-Me State can show something to the folks in DC - like ending socialism in America.
For Those non-Missourians, Governor Blunt is a Navy officer and was our Secretary of State before becoming Governor. He is only 34 years old so it is very likely he will be president some day.
I think this great news and it gives me hope that there may be something to go back to someday.
* "ranches" in Missouri are not like Ranches in Texas :-)
And insurance companies will no longer have to worry that complaints about their underwriting practices or refusal to pay claims will be available to the public.
He's all for big business robbing the general public and getting away with it...This guy doesn't represent American people...He represents multi-national corporations...Very big money...I'm all for smaller gov't but this person clearly has no conscience...
In 15 years he'll be eligible
It takes a really despicable person to levy that kind of attack just because their national socialism dream is being dealt a setback.
I don't think I'm dispicable, but who knows???
A 'little bit of socialism' is what makes this country great...I suspect this governor didn't say a word about the Fed gov't cutting back socialist spending of our dollars in Mexico, or 'Palestine'...Or 3 billion to Egypt every year or 15 billion to Africa...
He wants to make sure the owners and investers of the power companies get their 'maximum' benefit...He doesn't want to just get rid of the free-loaders on Medicaid, he's going after ALL the very poor and poor disabled...
So when you heard this good news, you had an ear to ear grin with dollar signs in your eye sockets???
I'm a conservative and I know we can afford to take care of the destitute Americans...We give hundreds of billions of dollars to everyone in the world, including our enemies...We can certainly afford to have some charity at home...
I live in KC too. The paper here is crying so loud I can hear it if I open my window. The socialists are squirming like slugs wearing a salt coat.
It's a great to be a Missourian.
"I'm a conservative and I know we can afford to take care of the destitute Americans."
But should we? That is what charities are for, not my tax dollars. I should not be forced to "take care" of anyone but my family. No conservative I know would have uttered that sentence.
"Up until now there has been no accountablity or means testing in the Medicare program. I think it is a step in the right direction."
and yet the local media spins it against blunt
What you mean is, you don't want to give your own money to help the poor (private charity, very efficient) but you want the government to take other peoples' money to help them (govt charity, very inefficient). Conservatives give their own money to organizations they deem worthy -- liberals try to take everybody's money and give it to the government.
You don't care about charity, just socialism.
In one year he will be eligible.
The constitution calls for a natural-born citizen at least 35 years old.
Very encouraging article. Sometimes elections do make a difference!
I didn't know the minimum age to run for President was 50, dude. If that had been the case, we would've been spared the rapist (at least until 1997). ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.