FGA’s 5 Hot Mics brings together five controversial
political professionals with five different ideological
perspectives debating five different topics in an informal and energetic way.

Our Hot Mics panelists are clever, informed and outspoken.
They are determined to make their points heard loud and clear.
FGA’s 5 Hot Mics is this season’s can’t miss political event.

Grey Oaks Country Club
2406 Grey Oaks Drive North | Naples, Florida 34105

Thursday, May 9, 2013
11:30 – 1:00 p.m. Lunch and Program
1:00 – 1:30 p.m. Cocktail Reception

RSVP by May 7, 2013 at
5HotMics.com
239.244.8808

Cost $40.00

MEET THE PANELISTS:

Jim Roach  | Former Democratic Congressional Candidate; Vietnam War Vet

Bob Harden | Producer & Host, Bob Harden Show

Slade O’Brien  | State Director, Americans for Prosperity-Florida

Rev. Wayne Robinson | All Faiths Unitarian Church

Chad Goote | Director of Development, Foundation for Government Accountability

THE RULES

• 5 different Hot Mic panelists
• 4 topics chosen by 4 Hot Mic panelists in advance
• 1 surprise topic chosen by the moderator
• 7 minutes of debate among Hot Mic panelists per topic
• Each panelist will answer specific audience-generated questions during a speed round
• 1 moderator keeps time ONLY for the topics—Hot Mic panelists are responsible for making their points heard
• 1 winner determined by audience applause
• Hot Mic winner receives the coveted Golden Microphone

FGA’s 5 Hot Mics brings together five controversial
political professionals with five different ideological
perspectives debating five different topics in an informal and energetic way.

Our Hot Mics panelists are clever, informed and outspoken.  
They are determined to make their points heard loud and clear.  
FGA’s 5 Hot Mics is this season’s can’t miss political event.

Grey Oaks Country Club
2406 Grey Oaks Drive North | Naples, Florida 34105

Thursday, April 11, 2013
11:30 – 1:00 p.m. Lunch and Program
1:00 – 1:30 p.m. Cocktail Reception

RSVP by April 9, 2013 at
5HotMicsApril.eventbrite.com
239.244.8808

Cost $40.00

MEET THE PANELISTS:

Jim Roach  | Former Democratic Congressional Candidate; Vietnam War Vet

Byron Donalds | Former U.S. Congressional Candidate and Political Commentator

Bob Levy  | Chairman, Cato Institute

Betty Parker | Political Columnist, Fort Myers News-Press

Chris Cinquemani | Chief Operating Officer, Foundation for Government Accountability

THE RULES

• 5 different Hot Mic panelists
• 4 topics chosen by 4 Hot Mic panelists in advance
• 1 surprise topic chosen by the moderator 
• 7 minutes of debate among Hot Mic panelists per topic
• Each panelist will answer specific audience-generated questions during a speed round
• 1 moderator keeps time ONLY for the topics—Hot Mic panelists are responsible for making their points heard
• 1 winner determined by audience applause
• Hot Mic winner receives the coveted Golden Microphone

By Jonathan Ingram, Director of Research

Executive Summary

Supporters of the Affordable Care Act’s optional Medicaid expansion have made a series of promises to Florida lawmakers as they decide if the government health program should include parents and childless adults earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. These promises include a reduction in the rate of uninsured, gradual enrollment increases, low and predictable costs, and a reduction in the amount of charity care.

These same promises were made in other states that previously expanded their own Medicaid programs. Because of this, Florida lawmakers now have an opportunity to see how Medicaid expansion impacted those states, and if
supporters’ promises were actually kept.

This report takes a closer look at Arizona, Maine and other states that expanded Medicaid. It finds that, unfortunately, expansion supporters have a poor track record of keeping promises.

• Enrollment among the expansion populations was much higher and faster than the slow and gradual enrollment that was projected.
• Medicaid expansion had little impact on the rate of uninsured. Arizona’s uninsured rate actually increased in the five years after expansion, while Maine’s did not change.
• Per-person costs for the new expansion populations were much higher than projected—particularly for the childless adult populations.

The experiences of these other states are instructive for Florida lawmakers. In those states, promises made by supporters of Medicaid expansion were unable to be kept. The same will likely be true for Florida if lawmakers ultimately decide to expand.

READ THE FULL REPORT (pdf)

NAPLES – A new poll commissioned by the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) is likely to cause buyer’s remorse for Governor Rick Scott and legislators who announced support for Medicaid expansion.

“Any Florida politician that hoped to score political points by supporting Medicaid expansion will be disappointed, and probably a little nervous, by these results,” said FGA President and CEO Tarren Bragdon.  “Medicaid expansion is unpopular with Florida voters, and a majority is likely to reinforce that opposition at the ballot box.”

The 811-person poll of registered Florida voters found that fewer than a quarter of respondents (24%) want Florida to expand Medicaid right away to enroll roughly 1 million more people into the taxpayer-funded health program.  A vast majority (70%) either want politicians to delay the decision for one year, or reject the expansion entirely.

With regard to expansion, voters indicate a lack of trust in the federal government to fund the expansion, support for a different approach to reducing the uninsured, and a belief expansion will increase voters’ taxes and personal health care costs:

• Half of voters have very little (27%) or no (23%) trust in the federal government to keep its promise to fund Medicaid expansion costs;
• 78% said making private health coverage more affordable was the best way to reduce the uninsured rate, compared to just 15% who said Medicaid expansion is the best approach;
• 62% strongly or somewhat agree Medicaid expansion will result in higher personal health care costs, while 70% of voters strongly or somewhat agree expansion will result in higher taxes.

A majority of voters (53%) are so firm in their opposition that they would be less likely to support their state legislator if he or she voted to expand Florida Medicaid by another 1 million enrollees.  Just 39% indicate they would be more likely to support their legislator for favoring expansion.

“Few voters believe that a massive expansion of government-run Medicaid will solve anything,” Bragdon said.  “Voters know it will cost more, tax more, provide less, and leave future generations with the bills.”

The poll was conducted by Mark Blankenship Enterprises (MBE) between February 19 and 23, 2013.  It has a +/- 3.44% margin of error and a 95% level of confidence.

CLICK HERE to access the full poll.

CLICK HERE to access the polling memorandum prepared by Mark Blankenship Enterprises.

About MBE

Mark Blankenship is president and chief executive officer of Mark Blankenship Enterprises, LLC (MBE).  MBE is a national communications and opinion research firm.. Blankenship’s surveys, commentary and insights have appeared in a range of national and regional media including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Drudge Report, Fox News, Roll Call, The Hill, Politico and others.  MBE provides a range of actionable and reliable research methodologies to Fortune 500 companies, small businesses, prominent law firms, media organizations, associations and non-government organizations. 

###

By Jonathan Ingram, Director of Research

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the federal Affordable Care Act, Florida policymakers are forced to decide whether or not they should expand the state’s Medicaid program to cover individuals earning up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level.

Whichever decision they reach will impact the state’s long-term finances, overall patient health, and taxpayers’ bottom line.  The decision is made even more difficult due to a lack of consistent projections related to costs (both short and long term), participation rates, and per person spending.

Myriad academic and advocacy groups have generated projections on the impact of Medicaid expansion in Florida.  However, the projections lack consistency—varying widely from one another.  This should be a red flag to policymakers.

• Over the next ten years, Florida will spend $270 million on Medicaid if the state does not expand.  Spending climbs to $341 billion over the decade if expansion occurs.
• In other states, providing Medicaid coverage for childless adults costs anywhere from 67 percent to four times the cost of providing coverage to parents.
• Looking at expansion scenarios for Florida given the actual experiences in other states leads to a wide range of possible costs for the expansion population ten years out–from a lowest cost projection of $4.1 billion to a highest cost projection of $19.5 billion.

Without a clear understanding of how Medicaid expansion will affect patients and taxpayers, the best decision for Florida policymakers would be to reject expansion.  At the very least, they should delay their decision until they can see the results of expansion in other states.

READ THE FULL REPORT (pdf)

5 Hot Mics is not your typical policy event.  FGA’s 5 Hot Mics brings together five controversial political professionals with five different ideological perspectives debating five different topics in an informal and energetic way.

Our Hot Mic Panelists are clever, informed and outspoken.  They are determined to make their points heard loud and clear.

FGA’s 5 Hot Mics is this season’s can’t miss political event.

Grey Oaks Country Club
2406 Grey Oaks Drive North | Naples, Florida 34105

Wednesday, February 20, 2013
11:30 – 1:00 p.m. Lunch and Program
1:00 – 1:30 p.m. Cocktail Reception

Cost: $40.00

RSVP by February 15, 2013 at
http://5HotMicsFebruary.eventbrite.com
239.244.8808

MEET THE PANELISTS:

Betty Parker  | Political columnist, Fort Myers News-Press

Roy Lenardson | Republican Commentator and Political Consultant

Joe Whitehead | The Joe Whitehead Radio Show/Retired Law Enforcement

“Smitty” Dorsey | The Ledge Radio Show – 96.1 K-Rock

Tarren Bragdon | CEO, Foundation for Government Accountability

THE RULES

• 5 different Hot Mic panelists
• 4 topics chosen by 4 Hot Mic panelists in advance
• 1 surprise topic chosen by the moderator
• 8 minutes of debate among Hot Mic panelists per topic
• Each panelist will answer specific audience-generated questions during a speed round
• 1 moderator keeps time ONLY for the topics—Hot Mic panelists are responsible for making their points heard
• 1 winner determined by audience applause
• Hot Mic winner receives the coveted Golden Microphone

FGA’s 5 Hot Mics is not your typical policy event.

It’s five controversial political professionals with five different perspectives
discussing five different topics in an informal and energetic way.
It’s like Thanksgiving Dinner without the turkey.

Our panelists are clever, respectful and informed, but they will be sure to make their points heard loud and clear.
FGA’s 5 Hot Mics is this season’s can’t-miss political event.

Grey Oaks Country Club
2406 Grey Oaks Drive North | Naples, Florida 34105

Thursday, January 17, 2013
11:30 to 1:00 p.m. Lunch and Program
1:00 – 1:30 p.m. Cocktail Reception

Cost: $40.00

RSVP by January 14, 2013 at
5HotMicsJanuary.eventbrite.com
239.244.8808

Cost $40.00

MEET THE PANELISTS:

Byron Donalds | Former U.S. Congressional Candidate and Political Commentator
“Smitty” Dorsey | The Ledge Radio Show – 96.1 K-Rock
Steve Hart | Social Media Consultant
Roy Lenardson | Republican Commentator and Political Consultant
Tarren Bragdon | CEO, Foundation for Government Accountability

THE RULES

• 5 different Hot Mic panelists
• 4 topics chosen by 4 Hot Mic panelists in advance
• 1 surprise topic chosen by the moderator
• 8 minutes of debate among Hot Mic panelists per topic
• Each panelist will be asked 1 audience-generated question during a speed round
• 1 moderator keeps time ONLY for the topics—Hot Mic panelists have to figure out themselves how to make their points heard
• 1 winner decided by whoever receives the most applause from the audience
• Hot Mic winner receives the coveted Golden Microphone

Join us for lunch at FGA’s first-ever
5 Hot Mics.
Political debate at its liveliest.

It’s five controversial political professionals with five different perspectives
discussing five different topics in an informal
and energetic way.
It’s like Thanksgiving Dinner without the turkey.
Our panelists are clever,
respectful and informed,
but they will be sure to make their points
heard loud and clear.  FGA’s 5 Hot Mics is this seasons
can’t-miss political event.

Grey Oaks Country Club
2406 Grey Oaks Drive North | Naples, Florida 34105

Thursday, December 13, 2012
11:45 to 1:00 p.m. with lunch served at 12:00
1:00 – 1:30 p.m. Cocktail Reception

RSVP by December 11, 2012 at
5HotMicsDecember.eventbrite.com
239.244.8808

Cost $35.00

MEET THE PANELISTS:

Bob Levy |
Chairman, Cato Institute
Betty Parker |
Political columnist, Fort Myers News-Press
Matt Hudson |
State Representative
Bob Harden |
Producer of the Bob Harden Show
Tarren Bragdon |
CEO, Foundation for Government Accountability

THE RULES

• 5 different Hot Mic panelists
• 4 topics chosen by 4 Hot Mic panelists in advance
• 1 topic chosen from audience suggestions at lunch
• 8 minutes of debate among Hot Mic panelists per topic
• 1 moderator keeps time ONLY for the topics—Hot Mic panelists have to figure out themselves how to make their points heard
• 1 winner decided by whoever receives the most applause from the audience
• Hot Mic winner receives the coveted Golden Microphone.

]]> http://www.floridafga.org/2012/12/not-your-typical-naples-policy-event-fgas-5-hot-mics/feed/ 0 http://www.floridafga.org/2012/11/release-obamacare-slush-fund%e2%80%99s-clever-name-masks-millions-in-waste/ http://www.floridafga.org/2012/11/release-obamacare-slush-fund%e2%80%99s-clever-name-masks-millions-in-waste/#comments Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:20:27 +0000 Chris Cinquemani http://www.floridafga.org/?p=1193 NAPLES – A new report released today by the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) shines the light of accountability on a little-known slush fund created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—ObamaCare—that will cost taxpayers $10 billion through 2019, and an additional $2 billion every year after.

In ObamaCare Prevention Fund Prevents Good Stewardship of Taxpayer Dollars, FGA Chief Executive Officer Tarren Bragdon dissects the Prevention and Public Health Fund created in ObamaCare—an account unfairly shielded from the traditional budget process, with its billions doled out not by elected representatives, but by appointed panels of bureaucrats to organizations.  Grants distributed from the Fund as supposed to invest in programs designed to improve health and restrain health care costs.

In typical Washington fashion, however, billions from the Fund appears to be targeted toward Nanny State initiatives designed to influence and/or control how Americans live their lives, based on reporting from the Centers for Disease Control.  For example, a 2010 grant of $126 million is targeted toward tobacco control, obesity prevention and the First Lady’s “Let’s Move!” initiative.  Another grant for $29 million in 2011 was also doled out for obesity and tobacco prevention.

$118 million in taxpayer-funded grants have been doled out in Florida alone, with $30 million going to the state of Florida, $40 million to Florida non-profits, $30 million to Florida county or city governments, and $11 million to for-profit Florida companies.

Despite limited success such lifestyle-changing programs can point to, the Fund continues to invest billions generated from individual and employer mandate penalties, tax increases, and substantial cuts to Medicare resulting from ObamaCare’s enactment.

“American taxpayers will feel the impact of ObamaCare’s penalties, taxes, fees, and abuse for years to come, unless the liberals who rammed this monster through Congress realize the error of their ways,” Bragdon said. “The Prevention and Public Health Fund is just one small, $10 billion piece of this fiscally devastating puzzle, and despite its excessive spending, quality of care is sure to decline and costs will continue to rise.”

Click HERE to read the report.

###

The individual mandate that forces people to pay federal penalties if they don’t buy federally-approved health coverage they may not want or need.  An employer mandate that drives up the cost of doing business. And, the more than 20 new or increased taxes that ObamaCare imposes on families and businesses.

ObamaCare raises a lot of money for the government to spend, but where is it all going?

Some states will put more people on the broken Old Medicaid program that is failing patients and taxpayers.  Others will funnel billions through health insurance exchanges, which are new federal bureaucracies designed to regulate and subsidize health insurance.  Think of these exchanges as having to buying health insurance at the DMV.

And then there’s the ObamaCare slush fund.

Officially the Prevention and Public Health Fund, this little-known component of ObamaCare directs $10 billion to state and local health promotion programs through 2019—and requires a startling $2 billion in funding each year in 2020 and beyond.

Although the Fund must statutorily “improve health and help restrain the rate of growth in private and public sector health care costs,” the federal government will give billions to health prevention programs before finding out if they even accomplish these goals.

And unlike the typical federal budgeting process, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its subagencies unilaterally determine how much of the money is spent.  To date, Florida grantees were awarded more than $118 million in 170 awards from the Fund.  Of these $118 million in grants, $30 million went to the state of Florida, $40 million to Florida non-profits, $30 million to Florida county or city governments, and $11 million to for-profit Florida companies.[1]

When “Public Health” Means the Nanny State

The U.S. spends about $24 billion annually funding “public health,” a term whose definition has changed over time.[2]

Traditionally, “public health” activities meant controlling communicable diseases, like tuberculosis or smallpox.  But as these diseases were brought under control and life expectancy increased, federal public health programs veered away from disease treatment and prevention, and towards regulating lifestyle choices, like eating, drinking, or smoking.

For example, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was established during World War II as a unit of the U.S. Public Health Service, and charged with malaria control in war areas.  Today, only two of the CDC’s eight “CIOs” (“centers, institutes, and offices”) are formally charged with the prevention of infectious diseases.[3]

Grants from ObamaCare’s Prevention and Public Health Fund have followed a similar pattern.  Since the Fund began disbursing grants in 2010, a majority of funds have been allocated to influencing lifestyle and behavior choices like nutrition,
physical activity, and tobacco control:

Prevention and
Public Health Fund: Major Grants by Year, 2010-2011

Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention[4]

When “Education” Means Lobbying

A closer look at the grants reveals an even more disturbing trend—federal dollars used for lobbying.

The watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste reports that the Fund’s Community Transformation Grants  (CTG) not only support efforts to modify behavior through anti-obesity campaigns, but also fund advocates who call for increased taxes and regulations on soda, cigarettes and even whole milk.[5]  The CDC reports that to date, CTG has awarded $173 million and will “improve the health of more than 4 out of 10 U.S. citizens.”[6]

CTG’s sister initiative, Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW), has faced similar criticism.  This CDC program, which began as part of the 2009 stimulus and continues to receive federal dollars through the Fund, offers grant making to local health promotion programs nationwide.

Miami-Dade County in Florida is one of 44 localities to receive CPPW funding.[7]  In 2010 the County received $14.7 million to launch the “Make Healthy Happen Miami” initiative charged with reducing obesity by, among other things, installing federally-reimbursable, healthy vending machines; supporting policies that encourage breastfeeding; and installing 50 bike racks in North Miami.[8]

Unsurprisingly, the initiative did little to affect overall obesity outcomes.  According to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s County Health Rankings, the adult obesity rate in Miami-Dade was 21% in 2010, the year the CPPW grant was awarded.  In 2012, the adult obesity rate increased to 24%.[9]

Miami-Dade’s CPPW activities might be viewed as ineffectual.  But in other localities, some CPPW activities may actually be illegal. In June, HHS Inspector General Daniel Levinson reported inappropriate lobbying activities by some CPPW grantees, which violates federal laws and regulations prohibiting the use of federal funds to influence federal, state, or local officials.

Specifically, CPPW applicants were asked to provide “a comprehensive plan to reduce tobacco use through legislative, regulatory, and educational arenas” and that some of the strategies encouraged by the CDC included zoning restrictions, labeling initiatives, and changing the prices of healthy and unhealthy items.

Levinson concluded that “some of the CDC information, as well as the non-CDC resource materials posted to the CDC Web site appear to authorize, or even encourage, grantees to use grant funds for impermissible lobbying.”[10]

The Futility of Government Prevention Efforts

Let’s imagine for a moment that it’s the proper role of the federal government to fund “for your own good” programs that regulate lifestyle choices.  Let’s also imagine that all CTG and CPPW funds have been used in an ethical manner.  The question still remains: Do federal health promotion programs really work?

In 2009, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf was asked to determine if federal health care costs would be reduced if the government expanded support for preventive care and wellness.  Elmendorf concluded:[11]

“Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.

“That result may seem counterintuitive.  For example, many observers point to cases in which a simple medical test, if given early enough, can reveal a condition that is treatable at a fraction of the cost of treating that same illness after it has progressed. … [But] to avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway.”

The CBO similarly found that expanded government support for wellness services, like encouraging healthy eating and reducing smoking, have little effect on reducing federal health costs because “designing government policies that are effective at inducing people to be healthier is challenging.”[12]

What’s Next?

Some officials have proposed reducing or eliminating the Fund to relieve federal budgetary pressures.  In February, Congress agreed to cut the Fund’s spending from $15 billion to $10 billion in order to preserve jobless benefits, Medicare payments to doctors, and the temporary payroll tax cut.  And with the “fiscal cliff” looming, the Fund may again be on the chopping block as Congress looks to make further cuts.

Because of federal fiscal uncertainty, states would be wise to avoid soliciting Fund grants to bolster existing health promotion programs.  But more importantly, lawmakers should reject these “for your own good” lifestyle interventions that are
costly, bureaucratic, and simply don’t work.

Click HERE for a PDF of the report.

Tarren Bragdon is chief executive officer of the Foundation for Government Accountability, a Naples-based free market think tank.

Sources