|
In a scathing New York Times op-ed, Republican and Independent lawmakers from the Alaskan House of Representatives and State Senate came together to outline the devastating truth about what Nick Begich’s Big, Ugly Bill would mean for Alaska – writing, “we’ve never seen federal policy whose impacts are so far-reaching and damaging as what is before us now.”
Read for yourself…
The New York Times: Alaska Cannot Survive This Bill
- The likely impacts from the “big, beautiful bill” are particularly ugly for our home state, Alaska: Nearly 40,000 Alaskans could lose health care coverage, thousands of families will go hungry through loss of benefits from [SNAP], and the shift in costs from the federal government to the state will plunge our budget into a severe deficit, cripple our state economy and make it harder to provide basic services.
- This is not about partisanship… Our focus is squarely on the survival of the people we represent.
- The benefits of Medicaid and the SNAP program permeate the entire fabric of the Alaska economy, with one in three Alaskans receiving Medicaid, including more than half of the children.
- In remote Arctic communities, Medicaid dollars make medical travel possible for residents from the hundreds of roadless villages to the communities where they are able to receive proper medical treatments.
- Alaska would need to find in its already stressed budget hundreds of millions of dollars for Medicaid and tens of millions for SNAP. Such cuts could not come at a worse time… Alaska cannot afford to lose health care funding.
- Alaskans who lose health care coverage will be forced to delay care until it’s an emergency. In desperation, they will end up in emergency rooms, the most expensive place to receive care, resulting in higher premiums for private sector employers and unworkable finances that will most likely force rural hospitals to close.
- A village in rural Alaska might lose its one and only grocery store because of a drastic decline in SNAP dollars. It might also lose its sole health care clinic or hospital because it cannot sustain its services with decreased Medicaid reimbursements. The reconciliation bill does not take into account the uniqueness of Alaskan lifestyles and geographic remoteness.
- What is the end game here? How does it help anyone to terminate health care coverage for our most vulnerable through red tape or take away food for families who have limited to no options for gainful employment?
- As long-serving members of the Alaska House of Representatives and the Alaska State Senate, we’ve faced many daunting economic and fiscal challenges, but we’ve never seen federal policy whose impacts are so far-reaching and damaging as what is before us now.
|
