Skip to main content

Think Carefully before Voting on SQ 802


So we vote next week on whether or not to expand Medicaid according to Obamacare’s provisions. A vote “Yes” on State Question 802 would expand Medicaid to able-bodied adults above the poverty line. A vote “No” would keep the status quo, with taxpayers buying health care under Medicaid mainly for poor children and pregnant mothers.


But as with just about anything proposed by initiative, State Question 802 is not really that simple. For one thing, it forever entrenches a federal program, which can be changed by Congress at any time, in our state’s constitution, which is not so easily amended. Obviously, the proponents of SQ 802 want to set the terms of the Medicaid expansion permanently, sidestepping our constitutionally instituted legislature, which is supposed to react and adjust to existing circumstances. SQ 802 would take that flexibility away.


A consequence of that reduced flexibility will likely be sacrifices in other state-financed programs such as public education, both in the near term and during inevitable future economic downturns. That’s because Medicaid will be an absolute entitlement ensconced in our constitution. Funding for public education, roads, parks, prisons, courts, and other purposes is not constitutionally protected, which means dollars that could fund them will be forced to flow to Medicaid, buying health services for able-bodied adults above the poverty line. And with prices in health care continuing to rise faster than prices of everything else, there will come a day when cuts to everything our state provides, except for constitutionally-protected Medicaid, will be deep and painful.


The commercials in favor of SQ 802 would have us all believe that Medicaid expansion is a pure financial windfall. They never say that to get the billion dollars for Medicaid from the feds, we have to put up $100 million of our own money, and they never say that the legislature has not determined a source for that money. If the legislature cannot agree on a separate source, the money MUST come from the rest of the state’s budget, and the biggest single item ripe for picking is – public education.


Proponents of SQ 802 act like Medicaid expansion is all about helping poor people. But who is funding the commercials? Obviously, it’s not poor people. It’s the big “non-profit” hospitals, with their million-dollar salaried CEOs who are funding the commercials. And that should give you a strong hint of who really benefits from Medicaid expansion. 


Low-income individuals are already getting the basic health care services they need, and hospitals are making money hand over fist. If they weren’t, new hospitals and hospital expansion construction projects would not be a constant fact of life, as they are now and have been for decades. When health care industry spokespeople claim financial hardship due to poor people not paying their bills, don’t buy it. It’s a lie. Even with the grossly inflated prices they claim on the books that, in turn, are used to exaggerate losses from charity and unpaid bills, both charity and bad debt are minor expenses for the big hospitals.


Medicaid expansion is just about making very wealthy people in the healthcare industry even richer. The rest of us will see that money only when we serve these rich people their meals, sell them a car, or add a new room to their already-opulent homes. Odds are, most of that money will just grow their stock portfolios. And that includes our $100 million, not just the billion from the feds, which is all borrowed in the name of a national government that is effectively bankrupt. At some point, we’ll be stealing from our schools to pay the big-city hospital administrators so they can buy a better model of Mercedes or yet another vacation home that’s not in Oklahoma.


But, some no doubt object, what about all those rural hospitals? They need the money!


Well, I recall a hearing in the state capitol where some nurses testified about how their rural hospital was made financially sound. They stopped operating wastefully like the big-city hospitals and stopped trying to provide services better suited to big hospitals. Then, their board was suckered into a contract where a management company used the hospital to defraud Medicare and also drove the hospital financially into the ground. No doubt, lots of equally incompetent hospital board members are all in for Medicaid expansion. Certainly those who would steal from taxpayers by defrauding Medicaid would be happy to see it grow, too. What pirate doesn't want a bigger treasure?


Health care is almost 20 percent of our economy, but that industry clearly isn’t satisfied. At what point are we going to question the wisdom of institutions that have government and insurance companies pay the bulk of medical bills while patients pretend health care is nearly free? Most of that 20 percent is a pure transfer from everybody else to wealthy health care providers and insurance companies through grossly over-priced services in an industry where competition mostly does not exist. Competition doesn’t exist because patients don’t pay their own bills; they often don’t even see them.


But, you might say, health care is a right. We all need it, not only for good health, but for dignity and life itself. You can make the same argument about food and housing, and indeed, these are often provided by government. But the problem with saying any one person has a “right” to something another person must produce is that you are also saying you have a right to another person’s labor. Paying them with taxpayer money only means you have a right to taxpayers’ labor, without recompense.


There’s a word for when a person has a “right” to another person’s labor without recompense – it’s “slavery.” Keep that in mind while casting your vote on SQ 802 on June 30.


Byron Schlomach is 1889 Institute Director and can be contacted at bschlomach@1889institute.org.


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.


Popular posts from this blog

Licensing Boards Might Violate Federal Law: Regardless, They Are Terrible Policy

Competition is as American as baseball and apple pie. “May the best man win” is a sentiment so old it doesn’t care about your pronouns. The beneficial effects of competition on economic markets are well documented. So why do we let powerful business interests change the rules of the game when they tire of competing in the free market? Most of the time when an occupational license is enacted, it is the members of the regulated industry who push hardest in favor of the license. Honest competition may be fundamentally American, but thwarting that competition through licensing seems to be fundamentally Oklahoman. Oklahoma doesn’t have the most occupational licenses, but when they do license an occupation, the requirements tend to be more onerous than the same license in other states. But what if, instead of merely breaking the rules of fair play to keep out would-be competition, Oklahoma licensing boards are also breaking the law? Normally a concerted effort to lock out competition would v

Undo 802

Why is it that when conservatives suffer a major loss, they give up, accept the new status quo, and fall back to the next retreat position? When progressives suffer a major loss, they regroup and try again. And again. Until they finally wheedle the American public into giving in. I propose a change in strategy. The Oklahoma Legislature should make undoing State Question 802 its top legislative priority for 2021. This will not be an easy task (legislators seem to prefer avoiding difficult tasks) but it is a critical one. The normal legislative process, with all its pitfalls and traps for the unwary, will only bring the topic to another vote of the people. So why spend so much political capital and effort if the same result is possible? Three reasons.   First is the disastrous consequences of the policy. Forget that it enriches already-rich hospital and pharmaceutical executives. Forget that it gives the state incentives to prioritize the nearly-poor covered by expansion over the des

Liability In the Time of Covid: When Should Businesses Be Sued for the Spread of Infectious Disease?

When businesses reopen, what liability should they face related to the spread of Covid? Can businesses who remained open during the pandemic, or those who were open before the lockdowns began, be held liable if their customers caught the virus within the businesses’ walls? If so, what would a customer-plaintiff need to prove?   Defending even a meritless lawsuit can be prohibitively expensive. For this reason, it is important to define ahead of time what harms can lead to successful lawsuits. Limitations on causes of action can reduce unwarranted suits by kicking them out of the legal system earlier in the process. So what should businesses be liable for? There are two distinct categories of business liability that might arise from Covid. The first is products liability. The second is liability for infection spread within a business.   Products Liability First, any willful fraud perpetrated in relation to Covid should be severely punished. This would include selling f

How Biden/Harris and Well-educated Sophisticates Are Wrong in the Age of COVID-19

Vice President-elect Kamala Harris often declared during the campaign that “We believe in science.” And judging by the tendency of the college-educated , especially among the sophisticates living on the coasts, to agree with Harris’s positions on everything from climate change to proper precautions amid COVID-19, belief in “science” seems to many a mark of knowledge and wisdom. But is it? The modern belief in “science” increasingly appears to be a religion wherein the words of certain recognized experts are received with the reverence once reserved for the Pope. A college diploma almost serves as a permission slip to suspend one’s own judgment and reason in favor of taking the word of certain experts to heart, especially if they work in government, certain universities, or gain media credence.   This tendency to turn experts and the media into high priests of all knowledge is nothing new. In 1986, 60 Minutes ran a story about a phenomenon people experienced in cars with automatic tra