Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2011 Cindy Rosenwald State Representative | Hillsborough County District 22 | Ward 3 | Nashua N.H.
May 7, 2012
NH State Rep
Medicare, the source of reliable health insurance for seniors, is beloved by citizens who have contributed to the program their entire working lives. A recent Washington Post/ABC News pollfound that strong majorities oppose cutting the program, or privatizing it as a voucher program.
Even though Medicare is so popular, New Hampshire’s seniors should be concerned because this program is under attack in New Hampshire from the House Republican majority in the legislature. House Republican leadership is pushing through a bill that would end Medicare as we know it in New Hampshire. Their effort to undercut the stability of Medicare for New Hampshire’s seniors also has the support of both Republican candidates for governor.
HB 1560 proposes that New Hampshire enter into a “Health Care Compact” with other states, which would allow states to set their own regulations over health care programs that receive federal dollars, such as Medicare. New Hampshire and other states would simply receive a sum of money to spend as they wish and would be exempt from the federal oversight that currently protects seniors.
Under current federal law, all Americans are eligible for Medicare at age 65. Seniors who use Medicare can keep their doctors and do not need a referral to see a specialist. Medicare pays most of their health care costs, and benefits have recently been expanded to include essential prevention and screenings without any out-of-pocket cost. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, the “donut hole” is being eliminated, a change that saved 13,000 New Hampshire seniors an average of over $600 on medicines last year.
Make no mistake; seniors’ access to Medicare’s health insurance benefits is protected by federal regulations. If New Hampshire decides to go its own way on Medicare, we would lose out on federal funding increases. Think about it: saving money in Medicare can only be accomplished in a few ways. These include cutting eligibility and benefits, or reducing the rates paid to doctors.
Instead of maintaining eligibility at age 65, the New Hampshire legislature could decide to raise Medicare eligibility to 67 or 70. This change could lead employers to drop their employee health insurance or lay off their older workers. It is unlikely that individuals in their 60s could find affordable health insurance on their own.
New Hampshire’s seniors could also see their benefits slashed if HB 1560 became law. Not only could covered benefits that Medicare currently provides be reduced, but the “donut hole” could return, and other services could cost seniors more out-of-pocket.
Finally, Medicare pays doctors a lower rate than many private insurers. Most doctors accept this payment, but if it were to fall further, more New Hampshire doctors would likely stop treating Medicare patients. This would force seniors to leave the doctors they may have known for years.
A recent poll indicates that Republicans are not doing well in the eyes of older New Hampshire voters. In reaction, the House Majority Leader recently wrote to other Republicans that maybe they “should consider taking up issues that are important to seniors.” This cynical statement is undercut by their attacks on Medicare, one of the most critical programs seniors rely upon.
Medicare benefits aren’t free; people pay into the system their entire working lives for the comfort of having a stable source of health care upon reaching retirement age. Our seniors have earned the stability that Medicare provides. HB 1560 would make our seniors unwilling subjects in an experiment they have no control over. It is wrong for New Hampshire. New Hampshire’s seniors need to say loudly and clearly: “Keep the legislature’s hands off my Medicare!”
(Representative Cindy Rosenwald, a Democrat from Nashua, is serving her fourth term in the NH House. She currently serves on the House Finance Committee and is the former Chair of the House Health, Human Services & Elderly Affairs Committee.)
In a recent op-ed, House Speaker William O’Brien and Ways and Means Chair Stephen Stepanek claimed that the Republican state budget has driven down the unemployment rate in New Hampshire. Looking solely at the change between September and November is disingenuous, at best. To assess fairly the data on unemployment, it’s necessary to look both at a longer period of time and also evaluate our performance vs. surrounding states. On both measures, the Republican leadership’s bragging doesn’t add up.
Under Democratic Leadership and Governor Lynch, unemployment went on a 16-month decline from January, 2010 – May, 2011. By January of 2010, the state had already recovered more than half the jobs lost in the Great Recession and was out-performing its neighbors. According to the US Dept. of Labor, under Democratic leadership, New Hampshire had the second fastest job growth in the nation.
Things sure have changed. Unemployment has actually risen in New Hampshire since the Republican budget took effect. In June of this year, while still under a Democratic budget, New Hampshire’s unemployment rate was 4.9%, approaching half a percentage point lower than it is now. That’s right: in the six months since the Republican budget took effect, unemployment in New Hampshire has gone up!
Furthermore, the jobs lost under the radical Republican budget are mainly private sector jobs, including at least 1,000 health care jobs. In their zeal for spending cuts, the Republican budget has in reality had a devastating effect on the private sector. Even the normally conservative Business and Industry Association agrees the $250 Million cut in hospital funding was a bad move and expects that, in addition to the loss of at least 1,000 good-paying jobs, the budget’s attack on hospitals will lead directly to higher health insurance costs for businesses and individuals. The irresponsible decision to slash hospital funding is actually a tax increase on health care providers that has led to a recalculation of their tax base and a potential loss of $50 Million in state revenues.
Beyond unemployment actually going up under the Republican budget, the recent good news of a tenth of a percent drop in the unemployment rate indicates that New Hampshire is underperforming its neighbors and the US average. During the same period that Reps. O’Brien and Stepanek are crowing about a 0.1% drop in unemployment, unemployment in our bordering states of Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont all dropped by 0.3%, and the US unemployment rate fell by 0.4%.
In addition to the irresponsible slashing of health care funding that led to job losses and early retirements, the Republican budget also cut $90 million out of the Highway Fund. This is money that would have been spent on highway projects over the next two years, creating many construction jobs. At the same time that the Republicans were making decisions that have been disastrous for the health care and construction employment sectors, they were insisting that the cigarette tax be cut 10 cents a pack. The terrible result of that decision that was forecast has indeed come to pass: Cigarette companies raised their prices to make up the difference, the retail price did not decline, but the state’s tobacco revenues are off millions over the last few months.
We all want to see New Hampshire’s economy prosper and grow. But to do that, legislators need to make responsible budget decisions and policy initiatives, rather than caving in to special interests. Speaker O’Brien and Rep. Stepanek’s claim that the Republican budget has succeeded in lowering unemployment just isn’t supported by the numbers so far. Granite Staters deserve a better answer than just political spin.
In the meantime, many families in New Hampshire are suffering from a long term lack of unemployment, including a mother of five, whose husband has been out of work for a year and a half. This mother was able, only through the generosity of coworkers, to buy a Christmas tree and new shoes to replace the boys’ sneakers that had holes. This New Hampshire resident’s husband finally has a good job prospect, but, ironically, it’s in another state. Surely we can expect better opportunities at home.
