From my viewpoint, Obamacare’s requirements that employers with 50 or more workers must provide high-level health benefits (which many employers can’t afford) or pay a penalty/tax of $2,000 or more per worker (which many employers can’t afford) will drive many relatively small or marginally profitable business out of business, or to reduce their hiring. Others may disagree. But according to the Washington Blade‘s coverage, the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force believes Obamacare, and in particular its Medicaid expansion, “is particularly important for LGBT people because they disproportionately live below the poverty level.” Moreover, according to a Task Force spokesperson:
“The Medicaid expansions are going to end up being hugely important for LGBT people because it expands coverage to low-income people, and LGBT people are disproportionately low-income … We know this because of rampant employment discrimination and housing discrimination.”
I suppose there is some poll that the Task Force could cite to support this (the article refers to the group’s own report, for what that’s worth), but much independent research indicates that gay people are not suffering from severe economic disadvantages, and advocates have been hard press to provide real evidence of “rampant employment discrimination and housing discrimination.” Isolated incidents, yes. More than that, no. (As the article goes on to note, the economic status of transgendered people is more likely to be marginal.)
And even if this all were true, further burdening the Medicaid system that’s already overextended and heading toward bankruptcy with a requirement to cover those who earn 133% above the federal poverty level, to be funded by still-more federal and state deficit spending (and, in part, with higher taxes on “the wealthy,” which also depresses economic growth and investment), isn’t likely to improve things in the long run—quite the opposite. But if you’re an LGBT progressive activist organization, you’re going to back big government spending solutions on the grounds that they’re good for gays (er, LGBTs), I suppose.
2 Comments for “Bigger Government: Always Good for Gays?”
posted by torrentprime on
You mention that Obamacare is “in part” funded by higher taxes on the wealthy. How big a part?
Does the rapidly increasing cost of healthcare, to both individuals and employers, “depress economic growth and investment”? Is the current system likely to improve, in either the short or long term?
Last, to refer to the health care overhaul’s costs without accounting for (or even mentioning) its savings as well seems a bit biased.
posted by Gus on
Medicaid (paragraph 1) and Medicare (last paragraph) are two different programs and are funded differently and in many cases are serviced by different medical professionals. Most love Medicare, as long as Congress continues the ‘Doc Fix,’ most do not take Medicaid patients. The fees physicians, clinics and hospitals can charge are on a vastly different scale. ACA has already started to address the $40.00 aspirin in Medicaid, it may take a while before Medicare reimbursement fees are also realigned with reality.
Editor replies: Gus is correct; the original post incorrectly referred to Medicare in the last paragraph instead of Medicaid, and the post has since been corrected. The health care reform law affects both Medicare and Medicaid, but the Task Force comments were directed specifically at the Medicaid expansion.