Tinderholt proposes reigning in program recently seen Subsidizing Heroin Addiction

“A wicked messenger falls into trouble,
But a faithful ambassador brings health.”
Proverbs 13:17

There's been a longer piece about the personal tragedies being wrought by the decrepit national economy making the rounds on social media the past few days; it contains this gem about the Medicaid program in Ohio:

But how did so many millions of un-working men, whose incomes are limited, manage en masse to afford a constant supply of pain medication? Oxycontin is not cheap. As Dreamland carefully explains, one main mechanism today has been the welfare state: more specifically, Medicaid, Uncle Sam’s means-tested health-benefits program. Here is how it works (we are with Quinones in Portsmouth, Ohio):

[The Medicaid card] pays for medicine—whatever pills a doctor deems that the insured patient needs. Among those who receive Medicaid cards are people on state welfare or on a federal disability program known as SSI. . . . If you could get a prescription from a willing doctor—and Portsmouth had plenty of them—Medicaid health-insurance cards paid for that prescription every month. For a three-dollar Medicaid co-pay, therefore, addicts got pills priced at thousands of dollars, with the difference paid for by U.S. and state taxpayers. A user could turn around and sell those pills, obtained for that three-dollar co-pay, for as much as ten thousand dollars on the street.

In 21st-century America, “dependence on government” has thus come to take on an entirely new meaning.

You may now wish to ask: What share of prime-working-age men these days are enrolled in Medicaid? According to the Census Bureau’s SIPP survey (Survey of Income and Program Participation), as of 2013, over one-fifth (21 percent) of all civilian men between 25 and 55 years of age were Medicaid beneficiaries. For prime-age people not in the labor force, the share was over half (53 percent). And for un-working Anglos (non-Hispanic white men not in the labor force) of prime working age, the share enrolled in Medicaid was 48 percent.

By the way: Of the entire un-working prime-age male Anglo population in 2013, nearly three-fifths (57 percent) were reportedly collecting disability benefits from one or more government disability program in 2013. Disability checks and means-tested benefits cannot support a lavish lifestyle. But they can offer a permanent alternative to paid employment, and for growing numbers of American men, they do. The rise of these programs has coincided with the death of work for larger and larger numbers of American men not yet of retirement age. We cannot say that these programs caused the death of work for millions upon millions of younger men: What is incontrovertible, however, is that they have financed it—just as Medicaid inadvertently helped finance America’s immense and increasing appetite for opioids in our new century.

Which makes the recently filed HB 1871 by Tony Tinderholt all the more important:

Representative Tinderholt Files HB 1871 to Audit Medicaid

In an effort to protect the integrity of Medicaid and ensure taxpayer dollars are not being wasted, State Representative Tony Tinderholt has filed HB 1871 to audit the state Medicaid program.  

Most Texans agree the elimination of abuse and fraud from government programs is important. HB 1871 requires Medicaid recipients recertify their eligibility when current benefits expire. It also begins a quarterly audit of the program. Qualified individuals would be notified to ensure they continue receiving uninterrupted care during the recertification and audit processes. 

Tinderholt commented on his bill saying, "To make sure resources are available to fund programs like Medicaid, we must stamp out waste in the system. It is our duty as legislators to monitor agency spending and ensure taxpayer dollars are being used in an efficient manner." 

While exact estimates vary, experts conclude Medicaid waste numbers in the tens of billions of dollars annually in the United States. While funding comes from a number of sources, including state and federal agencies, individual states exhibit the greatest control of finding fraud in the program.    

Tinderholt said, "If people are receiving benefits to which they are not entitled, we have to get that under control. We want to be sure the funds are there for those that need them most." 

As a combat veteran, Tony has spent much of his life fighting to protect the life and liberty of others. This bill continues that fight. Tony Tinderholt represents District 94 where he lives with his wife Bethany in Arlington. Tony is a proud father, combat veteran, and conservative Republican. He was ranked the 3rd most conservative legislator of the 150 Texas Representatives.

While we're on the subject, learn more about Texas specific examples of Medicaid abusing the vulnerable here.

Bottom Line: Medicaid has always been a fiscal trainwreck, but when socialized medicine subsidizes the drug abuse we owe it to our vulnerable citizens to curtail this abusive program.  In other words, we owe it to both ourselves and the recipients.  That's win/win.

The Taranto Principle, Leftist 2004 myths, and why Obama will (probably) lose (big)

Several years ago, Wall St. Journal columnist James Taranto introduced an idea that came to be known as the Taranto principle, it states:

the liberal media often ill serves liberal politicians by creating a feedback loop in which both sides reinforce each other's prejudices while public opinion goes its own way.

I think the 2012 election could become the biggest vindication of the Taranto principle since Paulene Kael in 1972.  At a minimum, the Obama re-election campaign has based its strategy around liberal myths about George W. Bush's 2004 re-election that leave it disconnected from reality.

The liberal 2004 mythology can be summed up as follows: "after a horrific first term for Bush, thatrottenSOBKarlRove(tm) knew Bush couldn't win so he brought in the Swift Vets to trash warheroJohnKerry(tm) and thatrottenSOBKarlRove(tm) also ginned up anti-gay sentiment to get his base to turnout."  All of the preceding statements are false.  Consider the following:

• George W. Bush had a reasonably successful first term -- People tend to forget this, because of what followed, but George W. Bush's first term was reasonably successful.  In his first term, George W. Bush cut taxes, responded appropriately to 9/11, and removed Saddam Hussein from power.  The disastrous "freedom agenda," amnesty push, and Wall St. bailout that unraveled Bush's Presidency were, in November 2004, still in the future.  Barack Obama's first term record, by contrast, speaks for itself.  George W. Bush didn't head into the 2004 election with 43 months of 8%+ unemployment (that would be closer to 11% if they weren't cooking the books) and embassies on fire.

• The Swift Boat Veterans were telling the Truth -- It's impossible to overstate the importance of the Swift Boat Veterans to the myths leftists tell themselves about the 2004 election.  Heck, leftists have event turned 'swift-boating' into shorthand for an underhanded smear campaign.  Unfortunately, for the left, the reason the swift boat veterans charges stuck is because they were true.  Leftist attacks against Mitt, by contrast, are laughably false.  That's why the over these over the top attacks aren't working.

• Homosexual 'marriage' wasn't a particularly important issue in 2004 -- First things first, Karl Rove didn't make homosexual 'marriage' a campaign issue in 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme court did.  That being said, homosexual 'marriage' wasn't particularly important.  Most of the states that had marriage referendums were solidly Republican and, in Ohio, the marriage referendum passed with a wider margin than Bush's victory.  Bush's 2004 voters weren't motivated by homosexual 'marriage,' they were motivated by post-9/11 national security issues.  Fast forward to 2012 and you see why the 'War on Women' narrative has been such a flop against persistent unemployment and embassies going up in flames.

In 2004, you had a reasonably successful, if unspectacular, incumbent (whose real policy disasters were still in the future) going against a challenger who told serious fibs about himself.  In 2012, by contrast, you have an incumbent with a disastrous record going against a challenger who has, if anything, undersold his own record.  Team Obama cannot replicate George W. Bush's 2004 re-election strategy, largely because they don't understand how Bush's victory happened in the first place.

Why Barack Obama Wants Chaos

Barack Obama and the Hard Left are laying a trap for the next President.  Unless the Republican nominee recognizes and prepares for this trap, he risks walking right into it when he assumes office next January.  Barack Obama and the Hard Left are currently sowing chaos that they hope will overwhelm the first year of the next administration in order to entrench the "Fundamental Transformation" he's already got written.

To prepare for this trap, the next President must understand Barack Obama's real agenda.  Barack Obama's actions over the last year reveal a man clearly uninterested in re-election.  For example, Catholics are swing voters in traditional swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida; why would any politician interested in winning an election in those states issue a mandate that offends the deepest moral beliefs of The Catholic Church?!?  Clearly, a politician interested in those states would NEVER take such an action.  Thus, one must conclude Barack Obama is uninterested in re-election.  What, then, is Barack Obama's real agenda?!?

Barack Obama's primary agenda, at this point, is to ensure the legislative changes he has already accomplished go fully into effect.  To secure his fundamental transformation of America, Barack Obama and the Hard Left will sow chaos throughout the United States and the World in 2012.  Expect that chaos to spillover into 2013/14 and the first year of the new administration, regardless of the new President's identity.  Barack Obama and the Hard Left understand that, in American politics, major changes in policy occur almost exclusively in the first year of new Presidential administrations.  Thus, Barack Obama and the Hard Left understand that if the new President spends 2013 reacting to National and Global Chaos, this window for major policy changes can pass without unwinding Obama's previous legislative victories.

Barack Obama's allies in the #Occupy movement have clearly stated their intention to "Recreate [the chaos of 19]68" in 2012.  To understand why recreating 1968 benefits the hard left, one needs to properly understand the events of 1969.  In 1969, Richard Nixon assumed the Presidency following the Biggest Expansion of Government (prior to Obama) in American History.  Nixon's inauguration was followed shortly thereafter by Leftist Campus Takeovers, the Emergence of the Weathermen, Homosexual Attacks on the NYPD, the Manson Murders, and the Marxist-inspired 'Days of Rage.'  Against this backdrop, and a continuing War in Vietnam, conservative efforts to unwind Medicare and the War on Poverty floundered.  From the perspective of the Hard Left, which seeks to expand government and does not particularly care who holds elected office at any given time, 1969 (and Richard Nixon's entire Presidency) was an unqualified victory.

At CPAC 2011, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels said the left "need only play good defense.  The federal spending commitments now in place will bring about the leviathan state they have always sought.   The health care travesty now on the books will engulf private markets and produce a single-payer system or its equivalent, and it won?t take long to happen."  Conservatives MUST remember this fact as we move forward into 2012 and beyond.  Between Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, and Automatic Defense Cuts, Barack Obama's fundamental transformation of America is already law.  During the coming chaos, whether it's in the form of #Occupy Related Violence, Drug Cartel Violence, a shooting war in the Middle East or any other source, the Federal Bureaucracy will continue business as usual.  Under current law, business as usual will entrench Barack Obama's fundamental transformation.  That's one of the reasons we should expect the coming chaos to continue (at least) into 2014 which is, NOT coincidentally, the year Obamacare goes into full effect.

Fortunately, the coming chaos is a surmountable challenge.  The key, for conservatives, is to recognize the coming chaos for what it really is and act accordingly.  That means electing to Congress committed conservatives who will enact conservative legislation NO MATTER WHAT ELSE IS HAPPENING IN THE WORLD.

The coming chaos is deliberate, and Barack Obama and the Hard Left are behind it.  Their goal is to distract and confuse the new administration in 2013 the same way the hard left did to Richard Nixon in 1969.  Forewarned is forearmed and, as long as a conservative Congress is willing to move forward no matter what, they will fail....