Governor Pawlenty’s Aging Services Cuts: A Short-Cut to a Dead End
- Date
- Apr 1st, 2008 9:52am
- Author
- Eric Schubert
- Category
A couple of years ago Governor Kempthorne of Idaho chaired the National Governors Association (NGA). Long-term care was the big-focus issue under his chairmanship. Today, Minnesota Governor Pawlenty (above) chairs the NGA. He’s also reported to be on the short list to be John McCain’s vice presidential candidate pick.
Unlike Governor Kempthorne, Baby Boomer Governor Pawlenty’s focus is far away from aging and long-term care. In fact, in his most recent Minnesota state budget proposal he cuts more than $130 million from the aging services budget over the next 8 years.
A big chunk of those cuts will come from nursing homes. Most people don’t want to live in a nursing home. But the fact is 30,000 Minnesotans and their families rely on their care right now. Many of those government-funded nursing homes in Minnesota operate with less than 10 days cash on hand. We’d like to see our state’s leader (and potentially a national leader) show vision and help transform Minnesota and our country for the silver tsunami. It might very well involve changing funding tools (the status quo is unsustainable), but simply slicing aging services without any kind of long-term strategy for an unprecedented aging population isn’t vision or leadership - it’s a short-cut to a dead end.
2 Comments
[...] “Changing Aging” doesn’t agree with Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s proposed budget chop to aging services absent an aging services and health care vision and strategy, we salute his [...]
Here is what Stephen Moses, Director of the Center for Long-term Care Reform (www.CenterLTC.com) has to say... LTC Comment: A theme in all my presentations is that publicly financed LTC will die, but not with a bang. Rather a whimper. Politicians and bureaucrats can't raise taxes enough to solve the unfunded liabilities in Medicare and Social Security without impeding the productive economy's ability to generate the profits to tax in the first place. They can't cut benefits enough to solve the problem without unleashing voters' outrage. But, sooner or later they have to do the equivalent of doubling payroll taxes or cutting benefits by half to keep the system going. My conclusion is they'll do neither, but will deal with the problem by means of a "thousand cuts." They'll gradually welfarize (means test) the social insurance programs (Medicare and Social Security) and they'll gradually return Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income (de facto entitlements) to their original intent as welfare programs controlled by strict income and asset eligibility rules. The process has already started. Workers on Social Security at age 62 lose benefits because of their earnings. Medicare Part B premiums are higher for people with higher incomes. Those are just the camel's nose under the tent. Watch for more of the same as time goes by, budgets pinch, unfunded liabilities come due, and policy makers can't solve the problems any other way. Like the frog that jumps out of the pot when thrown into hot water, but cooks contentedly if you turn up the heat gradually, the middle class will slowly lose its Social Security, Medicare benefits and Medicaid LTC benefits to the poor. They'll turn to home equity for LTC and once home equity is at risk, private LTC insurance will take off.
Name and email are required. We promise not to share your email address with anyone.