The Expansion of the Clean Waters Act: A Backdoor Way To Shut Down Fracking And Coal

Earlier this year, President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a draft rule to arbitrarily expand the Clean Waters Act beyond its current applicability to navigable waters and, once again, without any Congressional approval.  Under the proposed rule, the EPA would now control access to both intermittent and permanent sources of water; even if that water exists on private property.  So, if there's a pond out there that only forms after a rainfall, but is mostly dry the rest of the time, it will now be regulated by the EPA.

The justification being used by the Obama Administration for expanding the Clean Waters Act is that we need to insure access to clean drinking water and available and uncontaminated water sources for farming.  However, I believe there is an alternative motive behind this ruling and why the President doesn't want Congress involved, and that is so they can effectively shutdown oil drilling, and especially, hydraulic fracturing; or, what is commonly called fracking.

We all know the old story that oil and water don't mix.  But, when it comes to drilling for oil, a lot of water, mixed with clay and lubricants, is needed to cool and lubricate the rotary drilling heads and vacate the hole of any debris as the drill head bores its way through thousands of feet of soil and rock.  Now, usually, when the drilling is completed, and oil is found, this "mud" (the water, clay, lubricants, and cleared debris) is no longer needed.  But, not in the case of fracking.  Once the the drilling reaches the desired depth and sideways location, water is again, mixed with things like sand and chemicals, and is then pumped into the drilled earth at very high pressures.  In doing so, the shale rock is fractured and the oil or natural gas, contained within that shale, is released.  And the fracking continues until there is no more oil to be extracted.

So, I think it is highly likely that Obama will use the expansion of the Clean Waters Act to minimize any access to water for the purpose of fracking, or even, simply drilling for oil.  Unfortunately, oil and gas  aren't the only operations that require water.  Coal, too, requires water to cool and lubricate its drilling bits. So, I wouldn't doubt that the denial of access to water for all three of these fossil fuel operations is one of the first things that the EPA will do with their new found powers.  I also would expect that, when the EPA is taken to court over the expansion of the Clean Waters Act, Obama will, once again, find himself on the losing end of trying to legislate without Congress.

References:

Clean Water Act proposal would protect more water sources in West: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-epa-waters-20140326-story.html

Drowning our property rights: EPA's misuse of the Clean Water Act: http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/218663-drowning-our-property-rights-epas-misuse-of-the-clean-water-act

Explained: Oil and Gas Development Using High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing: http://www.watershedcouncil.org/learn/hydraulic-fracturing/

Explained: Oil Drilling: http://www.scienceclarified.com/Mu-Oi/Oil-Drilling.html

Medicaid: Increasingly, Healthcare In Name Only

Most Democrats consider Medicaid one of the major triumphs of progressive politics in the last 50 years.  So much so, that as part of ObamaCare, the Medicaid roles would be expanded to include those who's incomes are up to 38% above the federal poverty level.  Paul Krugman, the economist of all things liberal, once wrote in 2013: "I Have Seen The Future, And It Is Medicaid."  Now, it is being reported that several Democrats are going to make it a point to run on the expansion of Medicaid as part of their election/reelection efforts in the fall.

But, Medicaid has a big problem: Access to healthcare. 

Because Medicaid is the second highest state expense, just behind education, and because the states are responsible for determining the reimbursement rates for services provided by healthcare providers, state legislatures, for years, have been hacking away at those rates in their constant efforts to control costs and balance budgets.  As a result, you have this 2008 map which shows a state like California only reimbursing at a rate of 38 cents on every dollar that private insurers must pay for the same services rendered by primary care physicians:

Click on Image to Zoom

In essence, the underpayment by Medicaid is like squeezing a balloon.  When Medicaid squeezes down on one end, it must expand elsewhere to compensate. So, as a result, anyone with private insurance winds up paying for the costs that Medicaid doesn't cover.  However, if the insurers balk and won't pick up the additional costs then, the healthcare provider has no other option but to refuse to take on any new Medicaid patients.  And, that is increasingly the case today, despite the Democrat's grand plan to expand Medicaid.

In a recent study by a healthcare advisory group, Merritt Hawkins, in a random polling of doctors in 15 major cities who were practicing the 5 most common specialties (cardiology, dermatology, obstetrics-gynecology, orthopedic surgery and family practice), the study found that only 45.7% of those doctors would accept new Medicaid patients.  This was down from 55.4% in 2009.  But, more importantly, the polling for this study took place before the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion of January 2014.

Understand, that 45.7% is an average.  When you dig down into the survey results, you find out that Medicaid patients needing specialized treatment are basically left out in the cold. For example, only 63 cardiologists of the 262 contacted accepted new Medicaid patients.  That's only 24% or about 1-in-4.  Only 15% percent of orthopedic surgeons and only 17% of ObGyn's were willing to take on any new Medicaid patients.

Don't expect the situation to get any better. Last year, 8 states passed legislation that would further cut reimbursement rates as of January 1 of this year.  California passed a 10% cut into law.  Before that, in 2012, thirteen states cut their rates and, there is no reason to believe that the "cutting" won't just go on into the future.

So, the Democrats can praise Medicaid all day long, but it is another failed social program that is broken and not repairable; except at a great cost by forcing states to pay full-fare for services rendered. 


References:

Medicaid Expansion: http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacares-medicaid-expansion.php

Democrats to amp up calls for Medicaid expansion in campaigns: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/04/1290854/-Democrats-to-amp-up-calls-for-Medicaid-expansion-in-nbsp-campaigns

I Have Seen The Future, And It Is Medicaid - Paul Krugman: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/i-have-seen-the-future-and-it-is-medicaid/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

Physician Appointment Wait Times and Medicaid and Medicare Acceptance Rates: http://www.merritthawkins.com/uploadedFiles/MerrittHawkings/Surveys/mha2014waitsurvPDF.pdf

Democrats Tout Medicaid Expansion In Campaigns: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2014/June/04/medicaid-expansion.aspx

2012: States Cutting Medicaid: http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/july/25/medicaid-cuts-chart.aspx

Medicaid surge triggers cost concerns for states: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/26/medicaid-surge-triggers-cost-concerns-for-states-101039544/

California Cuts Medicaid Payments Amid Wave of New Users: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-04/california-cuts-medicaid-payments-amid-wave-of-new-users.html

New Study: Expanding Medicaid Reduces Access to Health Care: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/03/10/new-study-expanding-medicaid-reduces-access-to-health-care/

Rick Perry Is Right Not To Expand Medicaid In Texas

Job "one" for every state Governor -- and, certainly, every President -- is to do whatever is best for the people they serve.  But, according to Barack Obama, Governor Rick Perry of Texas is failing one million of his people by not allowing the expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare in his state. But is he?

Actually, by not allowing the expansion of Medicaid, Rick Perry is best serving his people.

Medicaid is the worst possible insurance a person could have.  It sorely underpays healthcare providers, and therefore many of them won't accept Medicaid patients; leaving those people with second or, even, third class healthcare access.  Texas is no exception. For proof look at this chart from the Texas Medical Association.

As shown, fewer and fewer doctors can afford to take on new medicaid patients. Others have dropped them completely; and, across the nation only about 56% of all doctors -- pre-ObamaCare --  accepted Medicaid, and, this chart stops at 2012.  Who knows what the number is today or would have been if Medicaid was expanded in Texas.  It's quite possible that it would show less than 20% participation or perhaps nearer to zero. 

So, who is more irresponsible?  Perry for not giving his people a 'mirage' of believing they have healthcare, or Obama, who just wants to play a political numbers game by forcing a million Texans onto a system that is already broken and sure to be even more so if it is expanded?

References:

Obama says Perry’s opposition to Medicaid expansion is ‘bullheadedness’: http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/11/06/5312489/obama-is-on-his-way-to-texas-for.html

Drop in Physician Acceptance of Medicaid, Medicare Patients: http://www.texmed.org/template.aspx?id=24764

Medicaid Fraud and You

From its inception, Medicaid is a program that was intended to provide medical care to those who are either at or below the national poverty thresholds.  So, one would think that, if there are 46.5 million people in poverty in America in 2012, there would be about 46.5 million in the Medicaid program in that same year.  Instead, Medicaid enrollment hit a record 72.6 million in that same year; or, a whopping 59% more people on Medicaid than in poverty.

While it's true that some states have expanded their Medicaid programs beyond the Federal guidelines for poverty, those states certainly haven't done so by a factor of 59%.  The reason being that Medicaid is the second highest expense behind education. Therefore, the states can't just wildly expand the program without completely blowing their budgets.

The true fact is that Medicaid is ripe with fraud.  Not only do some enrollees use fraudulent income data to enter the system; it is also a system that is weak in verifying when persons are no longer eligible for this benefit.  So, the rolls just keep on growing.  Even if the number of those in poverty starts to decline.

Obviously, any state or federal taxpayer is a big loser because this fraud is being primarily funded by state taxes with dollar-for-dollar, matching federal funds.  Beyond that, there is a vicious circle that is being created that, not only hurts any person with private insurance (whether purchased alone or through an employer) but, actually, hurts those who are legitimately in need of Medicaid.

Because Medicaid is such a big and fast growing expense, states have opted to control costs by reducing the amounts they reimburse the health care providers.  At the same time, the federal government has, too, reduced its reimbursements for care under Medicare.  This, in turn, has resulted in those same  health care providers charging private insurers higher and higher rates in order to offset the losses incurred in caring for Medicaid/Medicare patients.  This fact is well borne out by the following chart:

So, not only does the average American pay higher taxes because of Medicaid fraud; their cost of health insurance is also going up.  But, sadly, the "true" Medicaid patients are also being hurt in the process.  That's because whenever reimbursements are reduced, fewer doctors and hospitals, especially the good ones, will accept these patients.  The result is simple: Less quality of care for people on Medicaid.

Under ObamaCare, the already-broken Medicaid is being expanded by another 33%.  That will only result in more fraud, higher taxes and/or reduced reimbursements, higher private insurance rates, and lower quality of care for the true needy of this country.  This is just another reason why ObamaCare is so wrong for America.

References:

46.5 Million In Poverty: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/17/poverty-america-census_n_3940812.html

Record 72.6 million on Medicaid: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/72600000-record-number-medicaid-2012-outnumbers-populations-france-and-uk

California Cuts Medicaid Reimbursements by 10%: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-04/california-cuts-medicaid-payments-amid-wave-of-new-users.html

Census Bureau: Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in 2012: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/income_wealth/cb13-165.html

Medicaid And Medicaid Expansion: The Dirty "Big" Secrets The Democrats Don't Want You To Know

Last week, when ObamaCare was  "generally" upheld by the Supreme Court, a key provision of that law, the forced expansion of Medicaid, was actually struck down.  In a 7-to-2, majority decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government has no right to tell the states that they must expand Medicaid and and eat the cost or lose all federal funding for their existing Medicare programs.  Since then, at least 8 Governors  -- all Republicans --  have declared that they won't participate in the expansion; citing budget deficits being behind their decisions.

Surprisingly, the Democrats and the main stream media have been somewhat cold in saying or reporting anything about this.  The only time the press actually mentions it, at all, is to paint some Republican Governor in a negative light by noting that thousands of low-income citizens will be without access to health care.  But, that's an intentionally political deception.  For starters, only about 42% of low-income wage earners are without any health insurance.  The majority either get employer-provided insurance; or buy it directly, themselves; or, get their care through the Veterans Administration or through the Medicare disability program.  Secondly, since 1986, anyone in America, not insured, could go to an emergency room and expect to get care without question or any real commitment to pay.  Which is what those uninsured low-income people have been doing for years.


Just so you know. Medicaid is a program that was designed to give health care access to the very poorest of our country.  Basically, those people and families whose incomes fall below the currently defined threshold for poverty are all eligible for this program.  The cost of the program is shared by both the federal government and by the states; with the federal government currently covering 57% of the expense. In 2010,  Medicaid had 53 million participants and the overall cost was $409 billion.

Now to the dirty "big" secrets.  

Secret 1: Medicaid is an extremely expensive program.

As I indicated, above, the 2010 overall cost of Medicaid was $409 billion.  When you divide that number by the number of program participants, you get a per person cost of $7717.  But, you see, that per capita cost is $2677 higher than what the Kaiser Family Foundation said it would cost to buy private, individual health insurance in 2010; proving that, once again, the government never does anything cheaper than the private sector.  That's something to keep in mind when liberals tout the savings and benefits of ObamaCare.  And, that high cost is the reason that many states have adopted a program called HIPP (Health Insurance Premium Payment) whereby Medicaid participants are given a check and allowed to buy their own insurance; saving  millions in the process. The concept of HIPP is one of the programs by which Republicans are eying to reduce the massive cost of both Medicaid and Medicare.

Secret 2: 41% of the population already receives government sponsored health care.

Of the government sponsored health care programs, Medicaid is the largest with more than 60 million participants.  But if you add an estimated 50 million Medicare participants, and 8 million children in CHIP (Child Health Insurance Program), along with 8.7 million people who are getting federal disability insurance, and another million Vets receiving health care from the Veterans Administration, you get a total of nearly 128 million Americans who are getting their health care from the U.S. government. That's 41 percent of the population. 

Secret 3: The Expansion of Medicaid under ObamaCare was a deceptive move to greatly expand government sponsored health care in America.

For decades, Democrats have dreamed of having a government-run, single-payer health care system in this country; feeling that the current private insurance system disproportionately provides health care to the more affluent of our society.  So, when they started crafting ObamaCare, they seized on the opportunity of progressing that "dream" by expanding Medicaid to the supposed 25 million-low income people who, in theory, make up the majority of the uninsured. The rest of the uninsured would be addressed through the Individual Mandate or through the new health care insurance exchanges.  But the dirty secret here is that there are really about 90 million people in America who are classified as low-income wage earners; of which, about 75 million who could, in theory, be eligible for Medicaid under  ObamaCare. The Democrats are only counting the 25 million of that 75 million because they would have you believe that the remaining 50 million, who already get their health insurance in some other way, would continue to do so.  This is another deception.  Why would anyone continue to pay for my health insurance if  they knew they could get Medicaid insurance for free?  Simply speaking, the Democrats put the Medicaid expansion into ObamaCare so the 75 million more Americans would source their health care from the government; bringing the total being served by the government to 52%.  And, that 52% is a majority base that Democrats could use to win elections.

Secret 4: The cost of the new Medicaid expansion was intentionally hidden by forcing the states to pick up the cost.

By any measure, the expansion of Medicaid to 25 million low-income families and individuals would have a cost in excess of $200 billion the first year; and, then, grow at an estimated rate of 7.3% per year, compounded, thereafter.  That was a hefty chunk of change that would have driven federal deficits up by at least $2.5 trillion in 10 years.   So to avoid this cost and deceptively show that ObamaCare would be deficit neutral, the Democrats offloaded the cost to the states.  And, to make sure the states paid for the program, they inserted language into the ObamaCare law that said that they would lose all federal funding for Medicaid if they didn't fund the expansion.   Of course, as mentioned in the first paragraph, the Supreme Court found this to be thuggery and coercion and struck it down.  But, the fact remains:  If your state does pick up the cost of the expansion, it will show up in you pocketbook in the form of some new tax; for rich and poor, alike.

Secret 5: Medicaid patients will suffer from substandard health care in the future.

Medicaid, like its sister program, Medicare, attempts to control costs by squeezing doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers on the payments that they receive from the government.  As a result, an increasing number of health care providers are either dropping or refusing to take Medicaid (and Medicare) patients.  Like cattle, Medicaid patients are being herded into high volume, low quality, clinics for their medical care; waiting long hours or even days to see a physician or specialist.  So, increasingly, the more affluent of our society are being treated by the good doctors and getting good care.  Something that the Democrats wanted to fix by taking over the health care system. Just like Canada and England, nationalized health care necessarily induces long delays and lower quality into the system. Like the old saying says: "Medical care delayed can be the same as medical care denied.  Especially, when the patient died!"