Tag Archives: Medicaid

The Center Of Fraud

Posted on by

On Saturday, Legal Insurrection posted an article about the location of a large part of the fraud found in unemployment claims.

The article reports:

On Thursday, the Department of Government Efficiency revealed that three deep-blue states—California, New York, and Massachusetts—were responsible for $305 million, or 80%, of the $382 million in fraudulent unemployment payments issued since 2020.

DOGE also reported that 68% of unemployment benefits paid to parolees flagged by Customs and Border Protection as being on the terrorist watchlist or having criminal records were issued in California.

The DOGE team found that $59 million in unemployment benefits was paid to 24,500 people listed as over 115 years old. Another $254 million went to 28,000 people between the ages of 1 and 5, while $69 million was distributed to 9,700 people with birthdates more than 15 years in the future.

It is interesting that California, New York, and Massachusetts were responsible for 80 percent of the fraud. Slightly less than one-third of Americans live in California, Texas, Florida or New York. Having a large population makes it more difficult to track every case and makes fraud easier.

The article also notes:

DOGE also reported this week that since 2023, the U.S. Border Patrol (under the Biden administration) has paroled over 6,300 individuals flagged on the FBI’s terrorist watchlist or with criminal records into the country with “minimal screening.” Though their paroles have now been revoked, all received Social Security numbers and could access federal benefits. Among them:

    • 905 received Medicaid, including 4 on the terrorist watchlist ($276K paid out)
    • 41 collected Unemployment Insurance ($42K total)
    • 22 received federal student loans ($280K)
    • 409 got tax refunds in 2024 ($751K)
    • An undisclosed number received SNAP (food stamps)

I believe in helping people, but I also believe that charity begins at home and ideally does not involve the government. If I want to help my neighbor, good for me. However, for the government to take what I have earned and give it to someone who didn’t earn it is not a viable business plan for a nation. As Margaret Thatcher once stated, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

One Problem With America’s Financial Situation

Posted on by

On Friday, Breitbart posted an article about some of the abuses in Medicaid, food stamps and income tax returns.

The article reports:

A bombshell report from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) revealed that migrants on the federal government’s “Terrorist Watch List” were able to secure Medicaid after being released into the United States by former President Joe Biden’s administration.

According to DOGE officials, about 6,300 of Biden’s migrants — paroled into the U.S. interior with no immigration status — were either on the Terrorist Watch List or had criminal records and yet were still rewarded work permits and Social Security numbers.

The DOGE report found that 905 of the migrants, including four on the Terrorist Watch List, had been collecting Medicaid benefits totaling $276,000 in American taxpayer dollars. Another 41 were collecting unemployment benefits totaling $42,000.

Similarly, 22 of the migrants received tax refunds in 2024 totaling $751,000 and several more received food stamp benefits.

That’s more than a million dollars that taxpayers should not have had to spend. Americans cannot afford to continue giving money to people who are not American citizens.

As Milton Friedman once stated (article here):

A decade ago, Nobel prize-winning economist Milton Friedman admonished the Wall Street Journal for its idée fixe on open-border immigration policy. “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state,” he warned. This remark adds insight to the current debate over immigration in the U.S. Senate.

The article concludes:

This week, DOGE official Antonio Gracias said not only were Biden’s parole migrants taking taxpayer-funded benefits like Medicaid, but thousands were found on a handful of states’ voter rolls.

“We looked at voter rolls and we found that thousands are registered to vote in friendly states. And we looked even further in those friendly states and found that many of those people had actually voted,” Gracias said. “It was shocking to us. If I hadn’t seen this with my own eyes, I wouldn’t believe it … it is shockingly bad.”

The people who voted illegally need to be deported. They have broken the law in coming here illegally, and they have broken the law by voting.

Pay Attention To The People Who Are Opposing The DOGE Cuts

Posted on by

On Saturday, Stephen Moore posted an article at Hot Air about the opposition to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts.

The article reports:

If you haven’t watched the Bret Baier interviews on Fox News with Elon Musk and the other executives who have given their time and expertise to exposing the rampant fraud and inefficiency of our federal government, I urge you to do so.

It will infuriate you — and that’s what we need right now.

These Department of Government Efficiency volunteers are on a patriotic mission to repair our ship of state. They are hunting down the rats and scoundrels who have played us (we the taxpayers) for fools for so many years. It’s the greatest robbery — more than $1 trillion of fraud and corruption — in world history.

Yet too many Democrats are reacting as though Musk himself is the scoundrel.

The “Musk-ateers” have marked nearly 10 million Social Security recipients over the age of 120 as deceased. (How many monthly checks were sent out?) How about $10 billion in rent for empty office buildings? Hundreds of millions of dollars for foreign aid programs that went to “nongovernmental government organizations” and then disappeared down a rabbit hole? Billions of dollars in fraudulent Medicaid spending? A federal workforce that has been MIA for three years?

In the wake of this epic failure of governance, nearly every leading Democrat in Washington has protested: “Elon Musk is going too far.”

The article cites an example of why the Democrats oppose the budget cuts:

Or maybe the real answer is that THEY ARE IN ON THE SWINDLE. This could explain how so many politicians spent their careers in Congress and retired as multimillionaires.

In other words, what is most revealing about the Washington slime that we are waking up to in real time thanks to DOGE is that the waste and fraud is the currency of Washington. It pays the bills, and everyone in the swamp gets their cut. Remember: One third of $7 trillion is the stuff of fortunes.

How else does one explain the $2.7 million that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse allegedly directed/laundered to his wife via a nonprofit environmental group she worked for? This would clearly be graft, but it has gone unpunished.

We are living through the harrowing last scene in a Hollywood murder mystery in which you discover that the chief of police was in on it all along.

The article concludes:

In reality, perhaps the greatest public service of the Musk-ateers is that they have taught voters that Washington should never get another penny of our tax dollars until the sewer is completely drained and the tens of thousands of fraudsters inside and outside of government are put out of business and hopefully behind bars.

I agree.

Working For Food Stamps

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Daily Caller posted an article about some changes Republican leaders want to make to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The article reports:

GOP lawmakers are proposing major reforms to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), including work requirements for a vast swathe of eligible participants, the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) has learned.

Republican Oklahoma Rep. Josh Brecheen and Utah Sen. Mike Lee will reintroduce the SNAP Reform and Upward Mobility Act (SRUMA) Thursday. The legislation would impose work requirements on food stamp recipients between the ages of 18 and 64, including individuals with children of six years of age or older

Able-bodied adults with no dependents between the ages of 18 and 54 are currently eligible for three months of SNAP benefits over three years before work requirements start to kick in, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which oversees the program.

The article notes:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans support work requirements for individuals receiving SNAP benefits, according to a 2023 poll conducted by the Axios-Ipsos American Health Index.
Eight in ten registered Republican voters told the survey they back work requirements for SNAP or Medicaid recipients.

Brecheen and Lee’s proposal to rein in the cost of the entitlement program comes as GOP lawmakers are aiming to slash trillions in federal spending to help offset the cost of the president’s tax and spending priorities Congress is currently negotiating.

More than 42 million Americans received monthly SNAP benefits in fiscal year 2023, according to USDA data. Since the 1990s, federal SNAP spending has risen from less than $20 billion to more than $110 billion, according to information shared by Brecheen’s office.

Another suggested revision to the SNAP program is to prohibit the use of SNAP benefits to purchase soft drinks and most junk food. I may be cynical, but I suspect that if that rule is put into place, we will see a lot of food products suddenly renamed to avoid the restriction.

Change is needed. I don’t mind helping a person buy food in a time of need, but I also believe that people who are able to work should be required to work at least part time to get government benefits.

Scaring Up Voters–Literally!

Posted on by

One of the signs held up by the Democrats at President Trump’s speech on Tuesday said “Save Medicaid.” Just for the record, Medicaid is not in danger. That is a scare tactic to try and persuade voters to vote Democrat.

On Wednesday, The New York Post reported:

Get ready to be bombarded with ghoulish ads warning about grandmothers dying and children denied needed cancer treatments “just to make billionaires like Elon Musk even richer.”

The ads, paid for by a Democratic PAC, started running Monday. And Monday night Democrats attending President Donald Trump’s speech to Congress held up paddles with the message “Save Medicaid.”

It’s demagoguery in full swing to combat Republican efforts to control federal spending on Medicaid and stabilize the nation’s debt.

Gov. Kathy Hochul is claiming, “House Republicans just voted to rip health care away from up to 1.8 million New Yorkers — all to bankroll giveaways for billionaires.”

The article notes:

These are lies. The needy are not going to lose their health care, and the demagogues know it. 

Truth is, congressional Republicans are finally sticking up for working people who resent covering the bills for healthy folks who refuse to work.

To control Medicaid spending, Republicans are calling for a “work requirement” for able-bodied adults without children or an elderly dependent.

“Work” overstates the toughness.  Anyone who is employed for 80 hours a month, or attends school, a training program or drug-recovery program and is low income will still be eligible for free care. Just not moochers.

Just a reminder–in 1996, President Clinton added a work requirement to welfare payments. President Obama removed it in July 2012. President Trump reinstated it in 2017. President Biden removed the work requirements for Medicaid and food stamps.

The article reminds us of the recent history of Argentina:

Take it from Javier Milei, Argentina’s president, elected one year ago.

He campaigned with a chainsaw, pledging deep cuts to his government’s out-of-control spending.

At that time, his country had one of the highest inflation rates in the world. A year later, inflation is coming down fast.

Republicans aren’t taking a chainsaw to Medicaid, but slowing its spending growth will help deter inflation and allow them to renew Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which are about to expire.

Before 2017, the US was losing 10 multinational corporate headquarters a year to countries with lower corporate taxes.

After Trump’s 2017 cuts, the exodus stopped.

Renewing those corporate tax cuts is essential to save American jobs. Possibly yours.

When you hear the demagogues oppose Medicaid “cuts,” think of the guy sitting on the couch, while you go to work to pay his health-care tab.

Don’t fall for the phony sob stories.

Remember, there is no legal requirement for political ads to tell the truth.

A Necessary Step

Posted on by

There were a lot of reasons for the number of people illegally crossing our southern border during the Biden administration. Among the illegals were people fleeing violence in their home countries, people simply looking for a better, more peaceful life, people looking to take advantage of America’s social safety net, and people simply looking for work to earn money to send home. America’s social safety net was a part of what drew people here, but it was not all of the reason. President Trump decided to do away with at least that reason.

On Wednesday, Chronicles Magazine reported the following:

The Trump White House has successfully flooded the zone in its first 30 days, flummoxing its opponents with a pace and scale even the most ardent anti-Trumper could not have expected. Among all the moves Trump has taken to combat illegal immigration, however, one executive order signed last week stands out and could be the game changer the country so desperately needs.

President Trump’s  order to end federal spending on those here illegally is one of the most meaningful steps taken to end America’s long-running problems with illegal immigration.

“The surge in illegal immigration, enabled by the previous Administration, is siphoning dollars and essential services from American citizens while state and local budgets grow increasingly strained,” the order states. “With this Executive Order, President Trump is ensuring taxpayer resources are used to protect the interests of American citizens, not illegal aliens.”

How many dollars are there in question? A report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) last year targeted federal expenditures on illegal aliens during the four years of the Biden administration. The CBO claimed that that the federal government spent $177 billion in benefits for adult illegal aliens and their children who were admitted under Biden. Add that to another $101 billion of other federal spending on illegals, and CBO’s figure comes to $277 billion.

The report further specified where that money goes. Among the biggest categories were Obamacare premium tax credits ($59 billion), Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit ($43 billion), Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program, also known as CHIP ($40 billion), and food stamps ($15 billion). This only includes federal spending. A study in 2023 found the annual net cost of illegal immigration to the United States at the federal, state, and local levels, is $150.7 billion.  

Is there any question that this needs to stop now?

Hiding The Increased Cost Of Medicare Premiums Caused By The Passage Of The Inflation Reduction Act

Posted on by

The Inflation Reduction Act did a lot of things. One of the things it did not do was reduce inflation. We are now finding out that it will cause a significant increase in the cost of Medicare Insurance.

On Wednesday, Fox News posted an article about the use of taxpayer money to delay the increases until after the election.

The article explains:

In a move critics say is designed to shield the Biden-Harris administration from election fallout, the administration has leveraged taxpayer funds to mask upcoming increases in Medicare premiums.

Under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which was intended to cap out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries, insurers are poised to significantly hike monthly premiums, with average bids for Part D plans expected to triple by 2025.

In response to potential voter backlash, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rolled out a three-year “demonstration project” to subsidize these premiums, aiming to keep them artificially low. However, despite the appearance of relief, some critics are saying that taxpayers will fund a dramatic increase in subsidies — from $30 per recipient per month in 2024 to $142.70 in 2025 — raising concerns about the long-term impact on government spending and debt. 

The article notes:

Research published by Fidelity, an investment research group, shows that a 65-year-old retiring today can expect to spend $165,000 on health care in retirement, a 5% increase from last year and more than double the estimate from 2002.

Yet, there appears to be a disconnect for many Americans between the actual projected cost of health care in retirement and how much they expect to spend on those expenses. The average American thinks they will spend about $75,000 on health care and other medical expenses, less than half of Fidelity’s calculation, according to the research.

The estimate assumes that an individual is enrolled in Medicare – including Part A and Part B, which cover most hospital care and doctor’s visits – and Part D, which covers prescription drugs. Other expenses such as Medicare premiums, over-the-counter medications, dental and vision care and other costs typically not covered by Medicare are “left to retirees to manage on their own,” the report said.

As of April 2024, about 67.3 million Americans were enrolled in Medicare, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Of those, about half were enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan, while about 80% were covered by Medicare Part D.

“They just want to get through the election,” Grogan (former President Trump advisor Joe Grogan) said. “They’re hoping after the election they can face it, but its gonna need to be dealt with in the next 12–18 months. They did not believe it would be this bad and its only gonna get worse.” 

Medicine was much more efficient and much cheaper before the government got involved. It is time to let medicine become a free-market part of the economy. More competition will provide more care at a more reasonable price for everyone.

 

 

Training the Sheep

Posted on by

Author: R. Alan Harrop, Ph.D

Freedom is not a permanent state in any society. It is better visualized as something that has to be nurtured and defended constantly if it is to survive. The Founding Fathers recognized this truism. For example, Benjamin Franklin when asked what type of government had been created by the newly written Constitution, he replied: “A constitutional Republic if you can keep it.” Sadly, recent actions by the Biden regime raise the question of whether we are going to show the courage to fight for freedom or act like sheep.

The expansion of the welfare state and people’s willingness to be on the government dole, which would have been rejected by prior generations, shows that many Americans do not treasure their independence as much as we once did. All government handouts come with strings attached that limit our freedoms. Federal government funds provided for Medicaid expansion recently moved many states, including unfortunately North Carolina, to accept increased government control of our healthcare.

The use of fear by the Biden regime resulted in many people caving to the curtailment of their freedoms during the COVID outbreak. Similarly, they are using the fear of catastrophic climate change to get people to accept restricted freedom and a reduction in their standard of living. For example, recently proposed, impossible to achieve, restrictions on emissions from internal combustion engines will effectively result in only the production of electric vehicles by 2032. Freedom of choice is eliminated when the government allows only one option. That is also the case with gas stoves and other household appliances. The regulatory agencies are increasingly the way the Biden regime is controlling our lives and curtailing our freedoms.

Freedom of speech is the basis of all our freedoms. As the revelations made by the Republican controlled House have shown, the Biden regime, with the assistance of the FBI and the DOJ, colluded with platforms like Facebook and Twitter to interfere and block our freedom of speech. Questioning vaccines or man-made climate change were enough to get one blocked on these internet sites. Now, they have gone so far as to charge former president Trump with multiple criminal offenses because he dared to express his opinion that the 2020 election results were fraudulently obtained. Say something the Biden regime disagrees with and you are blocked on social media, or now, potentially indicted for a crime! If it can happen to an ex-president it can happen to all of us.

The youth of this country are being indoctrinated with the Marxist agenda. Make no mistake about it. This not only occurs at all grade levels in our public schools but also in our public libraries. Recently, I was in the public library in Boone, N.C., and observed a group of children on a scavenger hunt. The theme was the coming man-made climate catastrophe. The library staff conducted this program. No balanced information was given about the evidence that climate change is continuous and is caused by natural phenomena. Of course not!

Although the young people in our country seem oblivious to their loss of freedoms, we older people know better and must step up to fight against the Biden regime. Contact your elected officials and tell them you want the regulatory excesses stopped and the agencies that promote them de-funded. We must show them we are wolves not sheep!

Where Are The Fact-Checkers?

Posted on by

On Friday, Just the News posted an article detailing some of the lies being told about raising the debt ceiling.

The article notes:

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s office is disputing reports on social media and websites that Republicans are demanding President Biden agree to work requirements on a litany of social services programs in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.

A headline on the website Raw Story declared, “McCarthy demands work requirements on ‘all the programs’ including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and SNAP.”

The story was also retweeted by a former Obama campaign official Jon Cooper. 

“Kevin McCarthy is demanding that WORK REQUIREMENTS be added to receive not only Medicaid but also Medicare and Social Security. He doesn’t think Americans have earned their benefits – despite paying into all three programs over the course of their entire working lives,” Cooper wrote in another post Wednesday.

However, House Republicans’ push for work requirements as part of an agreement to raise the nation’s debt limit would apply only to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

The article notes:

The plan proposed by McCarthy and other GOP leaders to enforce work-related requirements in these federal benefit programs would not apply to Social Security and Medicare, contrary to information spreading on social media, the speaker’s office confirmed.

The article also notes that most Americans support work-requirements for some federal programs.

The article concludes:

Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz argued that most Americans support work requirements as opposed to issuing benefits without any strings attached.

“An overwhelming majority of Americans support a work requirement for welfare,” Cruz said.

He also suggested that Biden doesn’t support such a requirement but once did.

“You know someone [whom] President Joe Biden ought to listen to? That would be Senator Joe Biden who has previously voted for work requirements for welfare. But now he’s handed the Democrat Party over to the crazy socialist wing of the party that doesn’t want anyone to work,” he said.

Democrats point to analysis from liberal organizations such as The Center for American Progress, which have concluded that work requirements would not work under programs like Medicaid. 

Most Americans are generous people who support charity. However, the government bureaucracy has grown so bloated that it is very easy for people to scam the welfare system. When social programs were handled locally, it was easy to tell who was gaming the system and who was not. Now there is a thought in the back of the basic bureaucrat’s mind that says, “If I get everyone off welfare, I will lose my job.” This is not a good business model.

Some Basic Facts About The Debt Ceiling

Posted on by

Issues & Insights is a blog that was started by the team that for decades had produced IBD Editorials at Investor’s Business Daily. They are one of the most reliable sites on the web for financial and political information.

On Monday, Issues & Insights posted an article about the debt ceiling ‘crisis.’ The article pointed out a lot of basic facts that are being overlooked in the debate.

The article notes:

At the heart of all fearmongering over the debt ceiling “crisis” is the claim that if the federal government can’t borrow more money it won’t be able to pay interest on its existing debt, leading to a default.

But that’s poppycock. The government will collect more than a trillion dollars over the next three months. (It collected $638 billion in taxes in April alone.) That will be more than enough to pay interest on the debt. And it will be enough to pay all Social Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid bills, welfare checks, food stamps. There will even be enough money to pay for Joe Biden’s new electric car subsidies.

There just won’t be any money left for anything else. Nothing for the military, infrastructure, education, the environment, law enforcement, or any other program the federal government currently operates.

That’s because, as it stands today, every penny collected in taxes goes to pay interest on the debt and a category described as “payments for individuals.” Everything else is paid for with borrowed money.

…This year, the federal government will collect $4.8 trillion in taxes, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

It will spend $4.2 trillion on “payments for individuals,” and $661 billion in interest on the national debt.

Everyone knows about interest payments. But what are these “payments for individuals”?

As the budget document explains, payments for individuals:

Are federal government spending programs designed to transfer income (in cash or in-kind) to individuals or families. To the extent feasible, this category does not include reimbursements for current services rendered to the Government (e.g., salaries and interest).

In 1946, “payments for individuals” accounted for less than 11% of federal spending. By 1991, they reached 50%. In 2014, they topped 70% for the first time and have been bouncing around that level ever since.

The article also notes:

The vast bulk of these “payments for individuals” involve middle-class entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare, which are paid for in volume by … the middle class. Only a fraction of the money (26%) targets the poor and needy for programs such as Medicaid, welfare payments, food stamps, earned income tax credits.

Worse, some programs, Medicare, for instance, are regressive. A paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that “Medicare has led to net transfers from the poor to the wealthy, as a result of relatively regressive financing mechanisms and the higher expenditures and longer survival times of wealthier beneficiaries.”

This is all by design. The left desperately wants to increase dependency on government, and there’s no better way to do that than through income redistribution. Take as much money away from people as possible, then give it back to them in the form of a “benefit.”

Please follow the link to read the entire article. We don’t just need to cut spending–we need to overhaul the entire federal budget and follow the lawful budget process.

Following The Money On Transgender Surgery

Posted on by

Have you ever wondered where teenagers get the money for the drugs and surgery needed to be transgender? The procedures involved are not cheap. The drugs involved are regulated–you cannot pick up a prescription that contains a steroid without signing for the prescription. So who is paying for the sudden increase in transgender surgery–the American taxpayer.

On March 1, Don Surber posted an article at Substack about transgender surgery in America and who is paying for it.

The article reports:

Technavio reported in November, “The gender reassignment surgery market is estimated to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 10.73% between 2022 and 2027. The size of the market is forecast to increase by $321.48 million. The growth of the market depends on several factors, including the increase in the number of people opting for sex change surgeries globally, favorable government policies, and increasing insurance coverage for gender reassignment surgical procedures.”

Nothing medical, it’s just business.

You can see why “The AMA opposes policies preventing transgender individuals from accessing basic human services and public facilities consistent with gender identity, including the use of restrooms.”

The article explains the origin of taxpayer-funded transgender surgery:

The story said, “The authors of the aforementioned study point to Medicare’s decision in May 2014 to lift a coverage ban on transgender surgeries as the turning point in access to care, noting that the share of patients seeking gender-affirming procedures covered by Medicare or Medicaid increased from 25% in 2012-2013 to 70% in 2014. After Medicare and Medicaid started covering transgender surgeries, and after the implementation of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, private insurance companies followed suit.”

Taxpayers fund 70% of these surgeries thanks to Obama.

In 1981, Reagan banned billing taxpayers for this elective surgery. Between Obamacare and Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements, Obama and his administration produced a cottage industry that Technavio is really pushing.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. This is another example of a seemingly minor change in the law that has had huge ramifications. It is another example of the reason all Americans need to pay attention to any changes in government regulations.

Respecting The Tenth Amendment

Posted on by

The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To say that we have wandered from this principle is the equivalent of saying that there is some sand in the Sahara Desert. President Trump is slowly trying to put in place policies that will allow the states to reclaim at least part of the authority they were originally given under the constitution. Yesterday One America News posted an article about plans being looked at to change the way Medicaid is funded.

The article reports:

According to a Wall Street Journal report, President Trump is expected to release guidance that would make it easier for states to apply for block grants in the coming weeks.

The way these block grants work is that each state that applies for the program would receive a capped chunk of federal money to spend on Medicaid, however they choose. If a state spends less than what is given, they are able to keep that money for themselves.

Thus, the measure motivates state governments to make cuts on Medicaid as well as relinquish the federal government’s requirement to match what states spend on the issue. Many local lawmakers have reportedly praised the new tactic as financially responsible.

“We don’t need to put welfare in the Constitution to meet the needs of the most vulnerable,” said Jonathan Small, member of the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs. “It will cost $374 million in state taxpayer dollars, to cover 628,000 able bodied adults.”

Conservatives argue another perk is that Medicaid block grants are more efficient at the end of the day.

“Officials say it could improve the way Medicaid is administered since states can tailor their health care program to their citizens needs,” stated Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee. “Ultimately what that means is that the cost of healthcare will be lowered if states line up to be more efficient because they’ll be rewarded for such, then it will lower the cost of healthcare which is why it will be a win for the country.”

Hopefully bringing Medicaid back to state control would also cut down on the fraud that is so rampant in the program. Needless to say, Democrats oppose the move.

Shenanigans In North Carolina

Posted on by

Governor Roy Cooper was elected in 2016 and began his term in 2017. Previously he served as North Carolina’s Attorney General. My sources tell me that he runs the Democrat party much the way a mafia don would, using threats to make sure no legislators break ranks in their voting. He also seems to have some problems controlling spending in some of the state agencies.

The Carolina Journal posted an article today citing some of Governor Cooper’s current challenges.

The article reports:

Consider, for example, the current cash crunch at North Carolina’s Department of Transportation. Secretary Jim Trogdon blames the problem on hundreds of millions of dollars of hurricane damage and payouts to property owners whose rights were violated by the state’s abusive Map Act.

While these costs are real, they don’t fully explain DOT’s overspending. An outside consultant’s report dinged the department for faulty forecasting and cash management. State Treasurer Dale Folwell cited the report’s findings as well as DOT’s transfer of $1.1 billion from the Highway Trust Fund to the Highway Fund without his legally required authorization as reasons why Cooper should replace Trogdon.

Rather than responding to these specific concerns, the governor’s press office put out a statement rejecting what it termed “a financial lecture from the nation’s least effective state Treasurer.” DOT’s money woes have complex origins and consequences, to be sure. But Trogdon’s defense neither required nor was advanced by such adolescent name-calling.

Much less money is at stake over at the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, but its recent miscue inflicted more political damage.

The department handles a decades-old program called the N.C. State Scholarship for Children of War Veterans. The department sent out a letter informing colleges and universities that scholarship payments would be “delayed until further notice,” citing the budget impasse between Gov. Cooper and the General Assembly. But according to reporting by WBTV’s Nick Ochsner, there was neither a fiscal nor a legal reason to suspend payment. Whether this was simply an administrative screw-up or a purposeful attempt to pressure GOP lawmakers, it was incredibly foolish.

There are also some questions regarding Medicaid in the state:

Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services is mired in its own controversy over awarding a Medicaid contract to a managed-care network led by Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina instead of one led by Aetna. In its legal challenge to the decision, Aetna argues that one of the DHHS employees in charge of evaluating the bids was living with a key Blue Cross executive.

Furthermore, according to reporting by Carolina Journal’s Don Carrington, an internal document shows that Aetna’s bid originally ranked above the Blue Cross bid. A DHHS official then intervened to create a new criterion after the fact, which had the effect of displacing Aetna in favor of Blue Cross.

There are also charges that the Governor attempted to obstruct an investigation into some aspects of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.

The article concludes:

Cooper and three of his aides have been asked to testify on the pipeline at a legislative hearing on November 8. Will the sober-minded former state senator and attorney general show up and provide a persuasive defense of his administration’s conduct? Or will North Carolinians be treated to another round of political hackery and juvenile tweets?

Lt. Governor Dan Forest will be running against Governor Cooper in 2020. Dan Forest definitely has my vote.

 

We Need To Celebrate This

Posted on by

Issues & Insights posted an article today about the change in the number of Americans dependent on Government since President Trump took office.

The article includes a chart showing the change:

Here are some of the highlights listed in the article:

Disability. The number of workers on Social Security’s Disability Insurance program has sharply declined as well. It went from 88 million in January 2017 to 84.9 million as of May. That’s the lowest it’s been since August 2011.

…Medicaid. Enrollment in Medicaid also has dropped sharply since Trump took office — despite the fact that Virginia decided to expand its program under Obamacare, which added some 300,000 to its Medicaid rolls over those years.

As of this March, the total number of people on Medicaid and CHIP — the health insurance program for children — was down by 2.5 million.

Obamacare. The number enrolled in Obamacare has declined every year since Trump took office as well, and is now 1 million below where it was at the end of 2016.

Welfare. The number of those collecting welfare — either on the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or what are called “separate state programs” — has dropped by more than 800,000 under Trump.

The article concludes:

In a less biased news media world, the decline in government dependency would be front-page news.

Instead, when they’re acknowledged at all, these enrollment drops are treated as bad news by the Left, which treats any declining benefit programs as a problem that needs to be fixed — usually by expanding these programs. Thus, you have every Democratic candidate for president talking about trillions upon trillions of new benefit programs, which are designed to ensnare as many as possible in the net of government dependency.

They have it exactly backward. The goal should be to have zero people collecting government benefits — because they are gainfully employed and don’t need them. Anything else should be treated as a failure.

One of the reasons that it is so difficult to shrink government programs is that in addition to the people they serve, they provide employment for government workers. These workers understand that if assistance programs shrink drastically, then there will be fewer staff members needed to oversee the programs. It is definitely a reverse incentive to cut dependence on the government.

Trying To Get It Right

Posted on by

Dale Folwell is the State Treasurer of North Carolina. He was responsible for getting the state out of debt to the federal government unemployment benefits program (over the objections of many Democrats) and is now working to bring transparency to health benefits for state workers (again over the objections of Democrats and some Republicans).

The Carolina Journal reported on June 17th that Mr. Folwell is actually  making some progress.

The article reports:

With a deadline just 13 days away, Community Care Physician Network, North Carolina’s largest network of independent physician clinics, announced Monday, June 17, it signed on to the State Health Plan’s cost-cutting Clear Pricing Project.

Community Care Physician Network is associated with 2,500 primary care clinicians, pediatricians, family medicine physicians, obstetricians/gynecologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. The group has more than 880 practices statewide. The network treats more than 2.5 million North Carolinians, including 700,000 Medicaid beneficiaries.

“Their physicians are leaders in our state in developing the highly regarded medical home model. They’re known nationwide for high quality care, patient satisfaction and by using their innovative, collaborative approach to drive down costs,” Folwell said in a news release announcing the move.

Folwell says health care costs must be reduced immediately. The State Health Plan is only 3% funded, has $35 billion in unfunded liabilities, and will become insolvent in 2023. The Treasurer’s Office projects taxpayers could save $258 million and plan members $57 million annually under the Clear Pricing Project. The changes take place in 2020. Providers have until June 30 to join the project.

“It made good sense to us,” Conrad Flick, Community Care Physician Network co-president, said of linking with the reconstructed plan. “We’re dedicated to our communities and our patients, and focused on providing them with better and more cost-effective health care.”

The article concludes:

The N.C. Healthcare Association, the lobbying arm of hospitals and large health systems, continues to oppose Folwell’s plan. The group pushed for passage of House Bill 184 to halt the reforms and launch a two-year study instead. The House passed the measure, but it has gotten no traction in the Senate.

Hospitals say the cost-cutting features of Folwell’s plan jeopardize the survival of rural hospitals. Folwell said most rural hospitals will be better off financially under the plan, and nine of 10 primary care physicians will get more money.

Montana is among a handful of states that use the reference-based pricing model for their state health plans. Officials there told Carolina Journalthe results are positive.

Dale Folwell is attempting to bring the same sort of fiscal sanity to healthcare in North Carolina that he brought to unemployment benefits. Let’s hope that he is successful.

This Should Never Have Been Legal

Posted on by

Yesterday The Daily Caller reported that President Trump made a change to a 2014 Medicaid regulation. Some states had been skimming money from Medicaid payments and funneling it into union coffers.

The article reports:

The Obama administration issued a regulation that protected a state practice that had, by that time, been practiced for decades. Since the 1990s, states have accepted Medicaid money from the federal government meant for home health service providers, often the family or friends of the Medicaid-assistance recipient, according to the conservative think tank Freedom Foundation.

In distributing checks to the health providers, some states had begun skimming money and diverting it to unions and other interest groups in the form of dues, even though home health providers may not be members. The Center for Medicaid Services will begin cracking down on the process in July.

…The new regulation will prevent states from skimming up to $150 million per year from Medicaid payments and diverting it to other causes. The Freedom Foundation found that in 2018 eight states – California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont and Washington – were skimming money off Medicaid payments to caretakers.

As expected, the unions opposed this new regulation:

Unions slammed the Trump administration over the new rule. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU), one of the largest public-sector unions in the U.S., said the new policy was “anti-worker.”

The final rule attacks “roughly 800,000 home care workers’ ability to use common paycheck deductions for health insurance contributions, union dues, and other expenses,” the SEIU said in a statement. “The rule wrongly targets independent provider home care workers who, without a union, are faced with a physically and emotionally demanding job with a median wage of just $10.49 an hour, no healthcare, no paid sick time and no benefits.”

How about letting home care workers decide for themselves whether or not they want to join a union or pay union dues? The Obama regulation was simply another way to put money in union coffers that they could donate to Democrats during election cycles.

A Step In The Right Direction

Posted on by

The Washington Free Beacon is reporting today that the Michigan Department of Health & Human Services reinstated work requirements for people who receive taxpayer-funded food assistance. The change in the law will impact about 70,000 people in 69 Michigan counties.

The article reports:

Wheaton (Michigan Department of Health & Human Services Public Information Officer Bob Wheaton) said that these work requirements had been in effect before 2002, but were lifted because of high unemployment. With the economy improving, Wheaton said, the MDHH decided it was time to reinstate the policy.

Holly Wetzel, communications coordinator at the Michigan-based, free-market think tank the Mackinac Center, supports reinstating work requirements.

“Work requirements benefit the individual, taxpayers and the economy because they realign incentives within our welfare system that encourage, reward, and restore the dignity of work,” Wetzel told Watchdog.org.

Former Democratic President Bill Clinton incorporated work requirements in his welfare reform package in the 1990s, which Wetzel said were a great success. These policies, she said, preserve the food stamp system and ensure access to the most needy while incentivizing a sustainable lifestyle. Along with a more sustainable food stamp system, she said she expects that employers will see “a more vibrant and enterprising labor market,” which will help them fill positions in an economy that has brought more jobs to the country.

“[Food stamps] exist to help the truly vulnerable,” Wetzel said.

In addition to food stamp work requirements, Republican Gov. Rick Snyder is currently seeking to add work requirements to his Medicaid expansion program, called the Healthy Michigan plan. If Snyder succeeds, this will have the same work requirements as are currently required for food stamp recipients.

Putting a work requirement on food stamps provides incentive for those receiving food stamps to find employment. The fact that the state is referring people to programs where they can receive job training is also helpful. Part of human nature is not to appreciate things that you didn’t have to work for. Putting a work requirement of public assistance and training people for jobs helps the recipients of food stamps climb out of the poverty they are in. This worked in the 1990’s when it was first tried, and it will work successfully again.

Taking Advantage Of Those Who Can Least Afford It

Posted on by

The Daily Signal posted an article today about another battle in the war on the involuntary taking of union dues.

The article reports:

Sally Coomer of Seattle, who cares for her disabled adult daughter at home, doesn’t like the fact that union dues are deducted from the Medicaid payment she gets for her services under a Washington state policy.

“The money that is taken out in union dues, if it was not siphoned off, could be used to provide for more care,” Coomer told The Daily Signal about the Medicaid stipend given to home care providers.

“A lot of family members forgo careers to take care of family members and are working in situations where they are really financially struggling,” she said.

Washington is one of 11 states where the state governments work with public-sector unions to automatically deduct a portion of the Medicaid stipend and divert it to unions representing state employee unions.

The other states are California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, Oregon, and Vermont, according to the State Policy Network, a conservative think tank that focuses on state issues.

Nine states take money from Medicaid home child care workers: Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington.

Taking care of your child at home should not result in having union dues taken out of money you receive for the care of that child.

The Trump administration agrees:

However, the states face pushback from the Trump administration and, potentially, the courts in light of a recent Supreme Court ruling striking down mandatory payments to public employee unions by employees who don’t belong to the union.

The rule proposed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services would eliminate states’ ability to divert part of Medicaid payments from providers to a third party.

The article continues:

Caregivers may pay up to $1,000 per year in union dues, according to the State Policy Network, which says state governments are “dues-skimming” an estimated $200 million per year from home health providers and $50 million from child day care providers to give to unions.

Coomer’s daughter Becky, almost 28, has cerebral palsy and a disorder that causes seizures. She is blind and developmentally disabled.

Coomer, who has become an advocate for other families who don’t want to be forced to pay union dues, said many home care providers are not aware they have a choice in joining a union.

To qualify in Washington state, family members are required to go to an orientation run by the Service Employees International Union, which represents state government employees.

“At the orientation, they would tell people they are required to sign up,” Coomer said. “I don’t know what benefit we get from the dues. The only time I hear from the union is when they inundate me with a political agenda.”

The proposed new Medicaid regulation, announced July 10, is open for public comment.

Let’s hope that the practice of taking union dues from people caring for family members is ended quickly.

 

Not Really A Surprise

Posted on by

The American Spectator posted an article today that tells us everything we already knew about ObamaCare. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has just released a report about uninsured Americans.

The article reports:

Anyone with the intestinal fortitude to subject themselves to the legacy media will have seen countless “news” stories about the devastation wrought by President Trump’s “sabotage” of Obamacare. A typical headline appeared a couple of weeks ago in the Washington Post: “Americans are starting to suffer from Trump’s health-care sabotage.” This work of fiction claimed that the number of working-ageAmericans without health insurance had risen to 15.5 percent, a 3 point increase since 2016. But a report just released by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), says the real number is 12.8 percent — exactly what it was in 2015.

…NBC recently reported that the total number of uninsured Americans rose by a preposterous 3.2 million in 2017. According to the CDC, however, “There was no significant change from the 2016 uninsured rate.” The percentage is, like the working age statistic, precisely what it was in 2015. NBC, parroting the Post, based its uninsured propaganda on an unreliable source.

There are a few things to keep in mind when evaluating ObamaCare. The first is that is was never about health insurance–it was about giving government control of a major sector of the American economy and a major sector of people’s lives. We have seeen how well socialized medicine works in Britain when a child isn’t even given a chance to leave the country to receive alternative medical care that could possibly save his life. ObamaCare was a planned failure that would lead to socialized medicine in America during the presidency of Hillary Clinton. We have dodged that bullet (at least temporarily).

The major change that occurred to ObamaCare this year was the end of government subsidies to insurance companies and changing rules for insurance pools to make it easier for people to get health insurance in various groups. The real answer to health insurance is the free market–let companies compete without being over-regulated and let people know how much they are actually paying for healthcare services. It would also help to end ObamaCare completely. In order to end ObamaCare completely, the Republicans would have to learn how to get their message out over the din of the mainstream media. They would also have to develop a spine.

The article concludes:

A multi-year study dubbed the “Oregon Health Experiment,” whose results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine in May of 2014, has demonstrated that health outcomes for Medicaid patients are no better than those enjoyed by the uninsured. Scott Gottlieb, the current Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, summarized various Medicaid studies in the Wall Street Journal and also concluded that being covered by Medicaid is demonstrably worse for your health than having no coverage at all.

The CDC report doesn’t weigh in on this issue, of course. It just attempts to show us where the uninsured rate was and where it is now. But that is damning enough. It not only shows that the projections originally touted for Obamacare were wildly off the mark — it was supposed to have brought the non-elderly uninsured rate down to 7.6 percent by 2016 — it demonstrates that the Democrats and their media co-conspirators have been lying about what the real uninsured numbers are as well as President Trump’s role in their mythical increase. Not that this is new. The Democrats and the media have been lying about Obamacare from day one.

As more Americans realize that the media has been lying to them from the beginning, we may have a chance to get rid of ObamaCare. Until then, we are stuck with it.

Policies Have Consequences

Posted on by

On Friday, Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about the impact of some of the changes President Trump is making to federal handouts.

The article first cites changes in welfare:

Earlier this month, the government reported that enrollment in food stamps plunged by nearly 600,000 in one month. Is this part of a broader trend toward greater self-reliance?

…In the months since President Trump has been in office, the number of people collecting food stamps plunged by nearly 2 million.

The same is true for welfare. Enrollment in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program dropped 12% last year, to reach 2.3 million.

Better still, the number of workers on Social Security Disability Insurance was down to 8.6 million in March — a decline of more than 100,000 since January 2017, and the lowest level since February 2012.

So far this year, disability applications have averaged 179,000 a month, compared with more than 193,000 a month in 2016. And the number of people dropping off disability rolls is up.

The next area cited is Medicaid:

Even enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP — the health care program for the poor and children — dropped by almost a million in 2017, to 74 million. In contrast, enrollment surged by more than 2 million in 2016. (Medicaid’s rolls could climb gain if additional states decide to expand the program under ObamaCare.)

In other words, millions of people are now free from at least some of their dependence on federal benefit programs.

The article notes that some people judge the success of these programs by how many people take advantage of them–thus a drop in enrollment is seen as a drop in the level of success. Actually, it would be nice if those running the programs actually wanted people to be successful enough not to need the programs. However, if the level of participation in these programs dropped greatly, there would no longer be a need for the giant federal bureaucracy that administers them. It is unrealistic to expect people to do something that in the long run might make their job obsolete.

The article also cites changes in Work Benefits:

ObamaCare, for example, allowed able-bodied childless adults — with incomes above the poverty line — to enroll in Medicaid in expansion states. Because these states are now picking up a bigger share of the expansion costs, many are looking to impose work requirements to stay on the program. There’s also a push to add work requirements for food stamps.

That may seem heartless. But keep in mind that most of these programs have the word “temporary” right in their titles. They were never envisioned as permanent means of support, but a way to cover over rough patches.

The article reminds us that a poverty program is truly successful when there is no one who has the need to enroll in it!

To understand more about poverty in America and exactly what qualifies as poverty, I strongly recommend reading The Heritage Foundation‘s report Poverty and the Social Welfare State in the United States and Other Nations.

 

Should Your Family Caregiver Have To Join A Union?

Posted on by

Many families face the challenge of having to take care of elderly parents or disabled children. In certain states these family members are classified as public employees and required to have union dues taken out of the Medicaid funds that help pay for this care. If we are not careful, mom is going to be classified as a public employee so that unions can collect dues from her!

The Independent Journal Review  (IJR) posted an article today stating the following:

House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) will introduce a bill by the end of February “that would prohibit states from allowing unions to automatically deduct dues and fees from Medicaid funds that are intended to help family caregivers,” according to McMorris Rodgers’ aides.

The bill, which according to aides has at least some support in the Senate, will clearly state that withdrawing labor organization dues from a Medicaid payment to a family caregiver is an “improper use of Medicaid funds.”

A civil monetary penalty will be handed out for any violations of the proposed bill, according to the chairwoman’s office. “Due-skimming is robbing our nation’s most vulnerable who need Medicaid the most,” an aide told IJR.

The article concludes:

Caregivers took to Capitol Hill on Tuesday, calling on Congress to stop states — including California, Minnesota and Illinois — from classifying family caregivers as public employees. House GOP officials say ending the practice could save Medicaid and other programs as much as $200 million a year.

“What bothers me the most is, I know a lot of parents, because I’m in this community,” said Miranda Thorpe, a registered nurse who also cares for her 21-year-old daughter, according to Fox News.

“And none of them really understand that this is happening to them. They have no idea. I don’t think the state should be the factor that colludes with unions to take out this money without people’s knowledge,” Thorpe added.

“If they really wanted people to have a choice, then they should let them know what their options are. … I think it’s very unfair since this is a very vulnerable population.”

I don’t have a problem with unions, but they have become as corrupt as politicians (and sometimes the two work together very closely). Union dues should be collected from people who choose to join a union. Union fat cats live as well as the corporate fat cats they condemn (at least the corporate fat cats generally produce either a product or a service). It is time for the practice of penalizing family members who provide care for a family member to end.

 

Teaching Responsibility To Those Who Have Somehow Avoided The Lesson

Posted on by

Yesterday Fox News posted a story about Kentucky‘s plan to follow President Trump’s suggestion to add a work requirement for receiving Medicaid.

The article reports:

Under the new rule, adults age 19 to 64 must complete 80 hours of “community engagement” per month to keep their care. That includes working a job, going to school, taking a job-training course or volunteering.

“There is dignity associated with earning the value of something that you receive,” Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin said. “The vast majority of men and women, able-bodied men and women … they want the dignity associated with being able to earn and have engagement.”

One of the comments under this article on the site where I saw it posted commented that benefits were not for the benefit of the recipients, but to make sure how the recipients voted. Unfortunately we have created a group of people in America who would rather receive free things that the rest of us pay for than earn those things himself. I realize that some people need these benefits and have valid reasons for wanting them, and we need to help these people. However, we need to end the free ride for those who are taking advantage of the situation.

Note that the requirement is 80 hours a month. That is not a lot. That is approximately 20 hours a week. That is not an unreasonable requirement.

Losing Health Insurance Because You Want To

Posted on by

Yesterday National Review posted an article about the claims the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is making regarding the number of people who would lose their health insurance if ObamaCare were repealed.

The article states:

Do you want to repeal every word of Obamacare and replace it with nothing? CBO says 22 million fewer people would have health insurance. Do you prefer replacing Obamacare with a system of flat tax credits, in which you get the same amount of assistance regardless of your financial need? CBO says 23 million fewer people would have health insurance. Do you prefer replacing Obamacare with means-tested tax credits, like the Senate bill does, in which the majority of the assistance is directed to those near or below the poverty line? CBO says 22 million fewer people would have health insurance.

22 million, 23 million, 22 million—these numbers are remarkably similar even though the three policies I describe above are significantly different. Why is that?

Thanks to information that was leaked to me by a congressional staffer, we now have the answer.

Nearly three-fourths of the difference in coverage between Obamacare and the various GOP plans derives from a single feature of the Republican bills: their repeal of Obamacare’s individual mandate. But the CBO has never published a year-by-year breakout of the impact of the individual mandate on its coverage estimates.

So actually, a large percentage of the people who would lose insurance coverage if ObamaCare is repealed would choose to lose coverage because they would no longer be penalized for not having insurance. Basically, the CBO report is spin! There is also the matter of ObamaCare requiring people to pay for coverage they don’t need. Generally speaking senior citizens do not need maternity coverage or pediatric dental coverage. They should not be asked to pay for it!

When The Numbers Just Don’t Add Up

Posted on by

This was posted by a friend on Facebook:

This seemed like a reasonable question, so I did some research. On December 2016, CNN Money posted the following:

Nearly 6.4 million Americans have selected Obamacare policies through the federal exchange for coverage starting Jan. 1, federal officials announced Wednesday. That’s 400,000 more than had selected policies a year ago.

Under the proposed repeal and replace ObamaCare bill, the rate of growth of Medicaid will be cut–Medicaid will still grow, but more slowly. The goal is to create a program that will create a rate structure that allows more Americans to pay for their own health insurance. I am not thrilled with the current bill in the Senate, but passing it may be a necessary evil if we are to avoid single-payer or socialized medicine (which would be the result of the total collapse of ObamaCare which is rapidly approaching).

The Truth About The Current Healthcare Bill

Posted on by

Yesterday the Independent Journal Review posted an article about some of the lies we are being told about the current healthcare bill. I don’t support the current bill, but I resent the fact that lies are being used in an attempt to discredit it.

The article explains how the numbers are being twisted:

The current repeal and replace bill is a bad bill. ObamaCare needs to be fully repealed and the government needs to get out of health insurance. Let the people who understand actuary tables run healthcare. The only provision the government needs to make is to insure that high-risk pools are set up (and made affordable) for the people that need them. Healthcare should be available across state lines, tort reform is needed, and tax credits given to lower-income families to help pay for insurance. Otherwise, the government needs to let the free market to work.