Did anyone watch the Obama/Romney debate last night? None of my close friends did, probably because they already are among the “decided”. See the complete video and read the transcript Here.
If you watched, and if you are as obsessed with autism as I am, then you immediately noticed the President’s reference to Medicaid and families with autism.
As I indicated before, when you talk about shifting Medicaid to states, we’re talking about potentially a — a 30 — a 30 percent cut in Medicaid over time. Now, you know, that may not seem like a big deal when it just is — you know, numbers on a sheet of paper, but if we’re talking about a family who’s got an autistic kid and is depending on that Medicaid, that’s a big problem. And governors are creative. There’s no doubt about it. But they’re not creative enough to make up for 30 percent of revenue on something like Medicaid. What ends up happening is some people end up not getting help.
If you are anything like me, you probably did not know that the majority of expenses for the long-term care of the disabled comes from Medicaid.
You probably thought Medicaid was just health insurance for the poor.
Perhaps you thought wealthy states, such as Massachusetts, paid for the care of disabled citizens because of high moral values and a commitment to caring for the most unfortunate of unfortunates.
Medicaid, (Mass Health in Massachusetts), pays for health care for the poor and treatment of autism for children certainly comes under that heading.
For my adult autistic daughter, over 60% of the cost of her day program is funded by Medicaid. Her home is paid for by a combination of Medicaid and her SSI (Supplemental Security Income) check.
Decades ago now, the Medicaid Waiver was instituted to encourage the movement of disabled individuals out of institutions and nursing homes into more inclusive residential settings in the community. This allows for my daughter and others like her to live in group homes instead of outmoded and often cruel state hospitals.
In other states, movement away from institutionalization has been slow. This story here from the NY Times narrates the transition for one man in Georgia. In Massachusetts where we live a few families have resisted moving their children and they remain in the institution where they have lived most of their lives, at great expense to the commonwealth.
Even in Massachusetts there are yearly budget battles where well-meaning legislators and the governor try to parse out dwindling funds in the most humane way possible. Direct care staff did not receive pay increases over many years and family support services to those individuals who stay in their homes are continually under attack.
Imagine a scenario where each state is entirely allowed to decide what to do with all of the money. As it is, the dollars do not go far enough and states move money around creatively to fill their own needs. Who do you think is usually on the bottom of the pile, mostly unable to speak for themselves?
Would some states choose to fund only home care? How many more hurdles would they put in place for desperate families to stumble over? Would some leave the majority of the financial burden to “faith-based” charitable organizations?
I have never understood why in some people’s minds it is ok to let some Americans be more equal than others. Why shouldn’t the intellectually disabled adults in Georgia or Maine have the same opportunities as they would in Massachusetts? Why have a United States if you don’t want to share?