--------------
First Joe Balyeat's column:
On Wednesday, the Chronicle granted a guest column to former state Sen. Joe Balyeat for a rambling rant ("Rant: to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way." You decide who is doing the ranting.)
about government spending that was so filled with half-baked logic that it would take a couple of pages to respond. To pick just one example in the space allowed here, Balyeat argues that people on Medicaid are no more healthy that those without insurance. (no, Mr. Davis. Mr. Balyeat cited a study that came to the conclusion that "there was no significant health outcome difference." If you're going to "debunk" someone, Mr. Davis, at least get the facts straight.)
He seems to think the only purpose of insurance (Seems to think? If you don't know what he thinks about it, then what is the purpose of your statement other than to impugn his integrity?)
is to make people more healthy, and while it might do that in some cases, that is not the main reason for insurance. (Um, yeah. Mr. Balyeat did not claim it was the "main reason for insurance." He did make any claim other than to cite a study that dealt with one aspect of medicaid.
“Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.” – P.J. O’Rourke
The dust hasn’t totally settled on the legislative session. We don’t yet have the final fiscal results of governor vetoes. But the picture’s beginning to take shape, and for those who believe in limited government and slower bureaucracy growth, that picture isn’t pretty. Starting with almost half a billion surplus, a coalition of Democrats and swing-vote, squishy Republicans blew through that surplus plus another $9.5 billion in Montana tax dollars and federal funny money. The $10 billion total budget works out to be $115 million ($115,000,000) for every single day the Legislature was in session. That old adage needs re-vamping: “Another day ... another 100 million dollars.”
Here’s a clearer picture – with only 1 million people in Montana, the biannual $10.042 billion budget spends almost exactly $40,000 per every average family of four in the entire state! This doesn’t include direct federal spending nor city/county government spending – $40,000 state government spending in a state where the average private sector worker makes only about $35,000 per year! The burden of government on the backs of Montana’s private sector workers is heavy indeed.
Like O’Rourke’s drunken teens, Montana’s big spending politicians need to pull to the curb long enough to burp and ask themselves the crucial question: Over the long term, can a small private sector economy like Montana’s ($35,000/year per worker) support this much government? The $10 billion budget is a 13.35 percent increase from the last budget ... while inflation has only been about 2 percent per year. Can state government continue to grow at this unsustainable pace without seriously damaging Montana’s economic prospects for our children? Answer: no.
National economic studies (such as “Government Spending and Economic Growth – a 50 State Analysis”) prove conclusively that state government overspending results in slower economies and stagnant wage growth. But Helena’s big-spending binge continues with little thought given to the economic hangover which will be inflicted on Montana’s private sector.
A minority of conservative legislators attempted to act responsibly ... like teen friends trying to take away the car keys after the kegger. They blocked the multi-billion dollar, irresponsible Medicaid expansion; and on the final day made one last ditch effort to stop the governor’s demand for millions more in spending. But Democrat leaders and Bullock were indignant that anyone would challenge their spending sobriety, so squishy swing votes handed them back the spending car keys and the last bottle of “Jim Beam” by voting through every last “Bullock binge” dollar before hastily adjourning.
And the reward to those who tried to act responsibly was excoriation in the media and scorn from their big-spending colleagues. The squishy, swing-vote big spenders were labeled “responsible,” while those who maintained spending sobriety were labeled “irresponsible.” This makes as much sense as starting an organization called “Mothers Against Sober Drivers.”
The most glaring example of this topsy-turvy “responsibility” mislabeling is the Medicaid debate. Those who blocked Medicaid expansion were armed with research showing the program is a wasteful boondoggle – that Medicaid recipients have even worse medical outcomes than patients with no insurance whatsoever. Yet, daily we see news editorials excoriating conservatives for “irresponsible” rejection of Medicaid expansion ... even while the latest Medicaid medical studies prove the conservative point conclusively.
On May 1, researchers released results of an enormous, multi-year Oregon scientific study of more than 10,000 random patients. Conclusion: Medicaid enrollment “generated no significant improvement in measured physical health outcomes.” There was no significant health outcome difference between the 5,000+ patients in Medicaid versus the 5,000+ non-insured patients. In fact, the only significant difference between the two huge samples is that the Medicaid enrollees were happier because taxpayers were footing the bill for their substantially increased use of medical facilities. Fact: We’d be better off just handing folks money to spend as they wish ... that’d make them even “happier” than enrollment in an inferior health program.
Yet conservative Montana legislators who blocked this boondoggle spending program are called “irresponsible,” while those who joined with Democrats to take the car and the “Jim Beam” on a $10 billion binge are “responsible Republicans.” I think I need a drink.
Former state Sen. Joe Balyeat is now the state director of Americans For Prosperity.
The dust hasn’t totally settled on the legislative session. We don’t yet have the final fiscal results of governor vetoes. But the picture’s beginning to take shape, and for those who believe in limited government and slower bureaucracy growth, that picture isn’t pretty. Starting with almost half a billion surplus, a coalition of Democrats and swing-vote, squishy Republicans blew through that surplus plus another $9.5 billion in Montana tax dollars and federal funny money. The $10 billion total budget works out to be $115 million ($115,000,000) for every single day the Legislature was in session. That old adage needs re-vamping: “Another day ... another 100 million dollars.”
Here’s a clearer picture – with only 1 million people in Montana, the biannual $10.042 billion budget spends almost exactly $40,000 per every average family of four in the entire state! This doesn’t include direct federal spending nor city/county government spending – $40,000 state government spending in a state where the average private sector worker makes only about $35,000 per year! The burden of government on the backs of Montana’s private sector workers is heavy indeed.
Like O’Rourke’s drunken teens, Montana’s big spending politicians need to pull to the curb long enough to burp and ask themselves the crucial question: Over the long term, can a small private sector economy like Montana’s ($35,000/year per worker) support this much government? The $10 billion budget is a 13.35 percent increase from the last budget ... while inflation has only been about 2 percent per year. Can state government continue to grow at this unsustainable pace without seriously damaging Montana’s economic prospects for our children? Answer: no.
National economic studies (such as “Government Spending and Economic Growth – a 50 State Analysis”) prove conclusively that state government overspending results in slower economies and stagnant wage growth. But Helena’s big-spending binge continues with little thought given to the economic hangover which will be inflicted on Montana’s private sector.
A minority of conservative legislators attempted to act responsibly ... like teen friends trying to take away the car keys after the kegger. They blocked the multi-billion dollar, irresponsible Medicaid expansion; and on the final day made one last ditch effort to stop the governor’s demand for millions more in spending. But Democrat leaders and Bullock were indignant that anyone would challenge their spending sobriety, so squishy swing votes handed them back the spending car keys and the last bottle of “Jim Beam” by voting through every last “Bullock binge” dollar before hastily adjourning.
And the reward to those who tried to act responsibly was excoriation in the media and scorn from their big-spending colleagues. The squishy, swing-vote big spenders were labeled “responsible,” while those who maintained spending sobriety were labeled “irresponsible.” This makes as much sense as starting an organization called “Mothers Against Sober Drivers.”
The most glaring example of this topsy-turvy “responsibility” mislabeling is the Medicaid debate. Those who blocked Medicaid expansion were armed with research showing the program is a wasteful boondoggle – that Medicaid recipients have even worse medical outcomes than patients with no insurance whatsoever. Yet, daily we see news editorials excoriating conservatives for “irresponsible” rejection of Medicaid expansion ... even while the latest Medicaid medical studies prove the conservative point conclusively.
On May 1, researchers released results of an enormous, multi-year Oregon scientific study of more than 10,000 random patients. Conclusion: Medicaid enrollment “generated no significant improvement in measured physical health outcomes.” There was no significant health outcome difference between the 5,000+ patients in Medicaid versus the 5,000+ non-insured patients. In fact, the only significant difference between the two huge samples is that the Medicaid enrollees were happier because taxpayers were footing the bill for their substantially increased use of medical facilities. Fact: We’d be better off just handing folks money to spend as they wish ... that’d make them even “happier” than enrollment in an inferior health program.
Yet conservative Montana legislators who blocked this boondoggle spending program are called “irresponsible,” while those who joined with Democrats to take the car and the “Jim Beam” on a $10 billion binge are “responsible Republicans.” I think I need a drink.
Former state Sen. Joe Balyeat is now the state director of Americans For Prosperity.
---------------------
Now For Mr. Davis' response:
Now For Mr. Davis' response:
On Wednesday, the Chronicle granted a guest column to former state Sen. Joe Balyeat for a rambling rant ("Rant: to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way." You decide who is doing the ranting.)
about government spending that was so filled with half-baked logic that it would take a couple of pages to respond. To pick just one example in the space allowed here, Balyeat argues that people on Medicaid are no more healthy that those without insurance. (no, Mr. Davis. Mr. Balyeat cited a study that came to the conclusion that "there was no significant health outcome difference." If you're going to "debunk" someone, Mr. Davis, at least get the facts straight.)
He seems to think the only purpose of insurance (Seems to think? If you don't know what he thinks about it, then what is the purpose of your statement other than to impugn his integrity?)
is to make people more healthy, and while it might do that in some cases, that is not the main reason for insurance. (Um, yeah. Mr. Balyeat did not claim it was the "main reason for insurance." He did make any claim other than to cite a study that dealt with one aspect of medicaid.
Mr. Davis, have you heard of something called preventative care, and how medicaid is supposed to improve outcomes because of preventative benefits? Do you know that one of the justifications promulgated by supporters of the expansion was because of preventative care and how it would lower medical expenses by keeping people healthier? Despite your hysterical protestations, obtaining better outcomes via preventative care IS one of the issues, one that Mr. Balyeat is quite properly addressing.)
The point of Medicaid, among other things, is to enable people to get the care they need without going bankrupt. (Among other things, like preventative care, perhaps?)
Balyeat’s logic would argue that people with car insurance are just as likely to have accidents as people without it, thus no one should carry car insurance. (A spectacularly bad analogy. No part of car insurance pays for "preventative care" like brake jobs, tire replacement, or new windshield wipers in order to lower the chance of accidents and therefore claims.)
He doesn’t address some obvious questions such as (1) are some people going without insurance because they are healthier to start with, (2) does his study account for people without insurance who go to the emergency room when they are sick, costing the system (and the taxpayers ) far more than basic health care under Medicaid and (3) does the study take into account a myriad of other differences between Medicaid patients and the uninsured that might easily account for the health differences between the two groups? (What the study says is up to Mr. Davis to determine. He can read it and see if these points are addressed, and then he can save himself some typing time by not having to ask questions. The purpose of his questions, however, are not to obtain information. They are designed to neuter Mr. Balyeat without ever having to address the main points of his column. Which of course Mr. Davis never gets around to.)
Mr. Balyeat’s rant either is based on ignorance, the more flattering explanation, or is typical of the malicious and wrongheaded thinking of many ultra conservatives who think the poor would be better off if we’d just cut the safety nets and make them get off their lazy back ends and go to work. (Name 5 prominent "ultra conservatives" that believe this. Quotes please.) If only all our social problems could be solved so easily.
Swep Davis Bozeman
No comments:
Post a Comment