State's Budget Deficits to Strip One Million of Health Coverage

A public policy group has issued two new studies warning that one million people currently covered by health insurance might lose all coverage because of the looming state budget deficits. The group is calling on the federal government to intervene and offer fiscal relief to the states. But a critic of the reports calls them a "premature call to action."
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a left of center public policy organization, issued two separate reports warning that one million people currently covered by federal Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program "will be forced into the ranks of the uninsured if the [state budget] cuts are fully instituted." The group estimates that the collective state budget deficits in 2004 may be the largest in half a century, topping out at $85 billion.

"Only the provision of substantial fiscal relief to states by the federal government, a step that would also be more effective in stimulating the economy than most tax cuts under consideration, can forestall such an outcome," Robert Greenstein, CBPP's executive director stated.

Iris Lav, deputy director for CBPP, said the budget deficits facing the state for fiscal year 2004 are at least twice as large as the deficits the states faced during the recession of the early 1990s.

"When the governors release their budget for 2004 [in January] and state legislatures convene, states will be faced with closing both the newly and emerging gaps for the 2003 budget year and the massive new deficits for 2004," Lav stated.

"The deficits will be as much as a quarter of [some states'] budgets, even sharp cuts will not be sufficient to close the gap," Lav said in a teleconference briefing with reporters on Monday.

"Without a substantial federal fiscal relief package, the choices will be extremely stark at the state level and will bode ill for those who depend on state services, she added.

But William Beach, the director of the Center for Data Analysis at the free market Heritage Foundation, called the reports by the CBPP "a premature call to action."

"Once again, the CBPP has put the cart before the horse, and said we are facing a national emergency and therefore let's spend more," Beach told CNSNews.com.

Beach said the new reports encourage the state governments to "all of a sudden say we can't spend [state funds] on everything we want to, therefore the federal government should bail us out," Beach said.

Beach acknowledged that the fiscal situation for many states is bleak at the moment, but believes an economic recovery has begun and will alleviate the budget shortfalls.

"I want to be vary cautious before we react and do things that might slow the economy down," Beach said.

If the state fiscal situation does not improve, Beach believes the issues can be dealt with at that time.

"If it looks like there will be people who suffer because of lost health care, then we should have a good debate in Congress about what should be done," Beach explained.

"Once again, the CBPP has put the cart before the horse, and said we are facing a national emergency and therefore let's spend more," Beach told CNSNews.com.

Ok Children, can you say, "more taxes"?

Sorry to rail at you but I HATE ARTICLES that refer to some locale (town, city, state) but never mention the name of the place.

I assume this is about California, but the state's name is never mentioned.

Could you tell us that one teensy bit of information, or at least let us make a reasonable guess?

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a left of center public policy organization...

"Only the provision of substantial fiscal relief to states by the federal government, a step that would also be more effective in stimulating the economy than most tax cuts under consideration

"Left of center"?
NewsMax is calling this pack of jack-in-the-box clowns "left of center"?

The group is calling on the federal government to intervene and offer fiscal relief to the states

boris,

This article is dealing with states (plural). All states, not one particular state.

Hope this helps.

"This article is dealing with states (plural). All states, not one particular state."

This is one possibility. However:

"Iris Lav, deputy director for CBPP, said the budget deficits facing the state..."

"If the state fiscal situation does not improve..."

The article refers to states--plural--a few times and "the state" (singular) a few times.

It is open to debate.

--Boris

Incidentally, the article's title, State's Budget Deficits to Strip One Million of Health Coverage contributes to the implicit confusion.

The placement of the apostrophe indicates a single state is being discussed, thus: "State's". If the headline meant to refer to all of the states (plural), the correct formulation would have been "States'"

--Boris

Makes no difference, the leaches should never have been afforded health care at tax payers expense in the first place no matter which state they are in.

No one has the rite to provide me with anything toward my existance nor do they have the rite to pick my pocket for theirs. When I can't provide for myself I shouldn't be taking up space on this planet.

A public policy group has issued two new studies warning that one million people currently covered by health insurance might lose all coverage because of the looming state budget deficits.....The group is calling on the federal government to intervene and offer fiscal relief to the states....The group estimates that the collective state budget deficits...."Only the provision of substantial fiscal relief to states by the federal government....Iris Lav, deputy director for CBPP, said the budget deficits facing the state for fiscal year 2004 are at least twice as large as the deficits the states faced during the recession of the early 1990s....When the governors release their budget for 2004 [in January] and state legislatures convene, states will be faced with closing both the newly and emerging gaps for the 2003 budget year and the massive new deficits for 2004," Lav stated.

Etc.
The article is clearly talking about states, collectively.
Granted, though, the wording is incorrect and therefore confusing in a couple of places.

Regards,
LH

Hmmm. I thought this was pretty clear. Apologies for the confusion. This seems to say that the governors convened en masse to lobby for money from the federal govenrment.

I think that the article is merely pointing out that federal subsidies for healthcare, such as were voted for under HIPAA (health insurance portability and accountability act- 1996) are not going to be enough and that the governors of the states have called for additional funds. Ergo- more taxes.

This article is dealing with states (plural). All states, not one particular state.

The article sure sounds like it came from some lefty-loony state that is trying to make their mismanagement a Nat'l problem.
Another clue - 1M uninsured is far too small a number for Nationwide. It might fit in CA, though.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.