Often we forget about our disabled citizens who depend on Medicaid. Have we forgotten how passionate we were about our beliefs? We have citizens that are in facilities who depend on Medicaid and government assistance. If our government cut down the way Medicaid is funding, over 50 percent of our citizens will lose much-needed assistance. Also, it can effect closure of centers. Closures of centers mean loss of jobs and a higher unemployment rate. If our president cuts the was Medicaid is funding, we can damage our society as a whole. The government’s budget cuts will affect the care and support of mentally and physically disabled citizens. Our president wants to re-create how Medicaid is funded. Cutting back on government funding like Medicaid can affect people with disabilities, and put them at greater risk of losing their services. Without the necessary funding, this proposal could initiate a movement that encourages a move back to institutions in order to once again gain access to these services. Furthermore, many of those making careers as caregivers will end up losing their jobs. The government’s proposed budget cuts can affect mentally and physically disabled citizens because health care costs.
If our president decreases Medicaid funding, health care costs will eventually increase the cost of services. In the article titled “Cuts in Texas Medicaid Hit Rural Kids with Disabilities Especially Hard”, renowned NPR reporter Wade Goodwyn wrote in 2016, Medicaid budget cuts have already hurt those who take advantage of provided services. Reporter Goodwyn gives readers a child who was at risk of losing services provided by Medicaid. Goodwyn also used a real-life example of how loss of funding directly impacts a disabled child’s developmental growth, her family, and her caregivers. Reporter Goodwyn did a good job of supporting his argument because it is easy to read and understand, and it provides examples. The report also humanizes the topic by introducing readers to a child and her family who were impacted by the Medicaid budget cutbacks. His article also tells us the consequences from these budget cuts back and re-allocations will only continue to decrease the quality of life for our disabled citizens. It also shows that centers who employ the caregivers who provide these services are already beginning to close their doors. Since industry already suffers from a lack of adequate revenue when compared to time and effort required to support the disabled, making it hard for caregivers to support their own families. Increased cuts will lead to a decrease in pay, further stressing the employee, and which creates a job-related environment of high stress and limited motivation.
Many states have already being affected by multi-million budget cuts are currently seeing the impact of losing funding for their children with special needs, particularly in their rural communities. Julian Pecquet, a journalist with experience as a congressional correspondent, argues that cutting the government’s Medicaid budget will save $810 billion dollars and it can be done effectively over a period of 10 years, in his article titled “Ryan budget cuts Medicaid by $810 billion: plan would give states more flexibility to run program as they see fit.” While the article is counter-arguing the main claim, it is also stating that the budget cut will give states more flexibility to uniquely run individual programs and will protect low-income seniors. The article does offer a compelling counter-argument, but also stresses that while funding will decrease the healthcare costs will keep going up. Although credible and persuasive, Pecquet’s article is not doing a good job of supporting its arguments because it’s only considering a fraction of Medicaid recipients and doesn’t elaborate enough on what the future will look like. However, he very clearly shows how massive the amount of money proposed being taken from Medicaid recipients is.
A likely very, near-future consequence of cutting Medicaid funding could lead to re-institutionalizing our disabled, something that we once decided was unethical, inhumane, and fought so hard to end. In her article titled “Of Technological Targets and Budgetary Bombs,” social work educator and researcher Sharon Keigher argues that proposed Medicaid budget cuts will disproportionately impact disabled recipients because programs that are already in place are made up of a variety of services that go hand in hand. She uses quotes from credible sources, relevant examples, data, and statistics to support her argument. Keigher’s article does a good job of supporting its arguments because it tells of how the proposed Medicaid budget cuts will not only be detrimental to current and future recipients but to the national as a whole. It also addresses the facts behind proposed budget cuts and provides insight into potential future consequences.
The main counter-argument to this problem is by decreasing the funding typically allocated to those with disabilities, the government is able to save billions in expenses, it will allow for the creation of individualized care plans. The rebuttal to this line of thinking is that the government is looking to base their budget cuts on what was needed in previous years. With the disabled population on the rise, and will continue to rise, how can we accurately determine necessary funding when we’re calculating those amounts from years where the financial support wasn’t adequately satisfying the needs at that time. Add to the fact that our government is only considering this funding based on a fraction of those being supported by Medicaid, and without keeping potential future outlooks in mind. Finally, there haven’t been any guidelines put into place that would distinguish one disability from another that would allow for effective individual treatment plans.
Early intervention programs and services are closing their doors and losing their staff because they aren’t able to pay employees, and because of this, the disabled are suffering. This suffering that will only continue for a lifetime both for the child and the community because early intervention is necessary for development, especially for those with disabilities. Health care costs will continue to increase as services become unavailable and force many to lose their jobs. Although the idea of budget cuts might sound good at first and most states might be able to handle it for the first several years, it’s not really a sound plan because basing future funding on past spending only increases risk and promises poor quality of life for those with disabilities. Raising awareness is likely to face challenges due to this issue having many components, which leads to varying degrees of understanding (or none at all) from the public. An effective financial plan can be created that will not only allow proper funding for the mentally and physically disabled, but also limit attrition in the direct care workplace by keeping an eye on future and the needs of the growth of the industry, factor in the experiences from states already faced with the consequences of limited funding, and eliminate the need for institutions where we house those with disabilities.
- Goodwyn, W. (2016, November 3). Cuts In Texas Medicaid Hit Rural Kids With Disabilities Especially Hard. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/ 2016/ 11/03/500420007/texas-medicaid-cuts-hit-rural-disabled-kids-especially-hard4
- Keigher, S. (1995). Of Technological Targets and Budgetary Bombs: The Dangers of Depersonalized Budgetary Warfare. Health & Social Work, 20(4), 300-300. 6p. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=9510271660&site=eds-live&scope=site
- Pecquet, J. (2012). Ryan’s budget cuts Medicaid by $810 billion: plan would give states more flexibility to run programs as they see fit. The Hill. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsggo&AN=edsgcl.284937953&site=eds-live&scope=sit