The Presbyterian Church (USA) was one of 234 organizations signing a letter to U.S. Senators protesting the Graham-Cassidy proposal, saying it “will eliminate affordable quality health care for millions of Americans by gutting the Affordable Care Act (ACA); slash federal funding and destroy Medicaid by turning its funding into per capita caps; eliminate the Medicaid expansion; and defund Planned Parenthood health centers.”
The letter, sponsored by The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Health Law Program, the National Partnership for Women & Families, continued:
“Graham-Cassidy would leave tens of millions of people in the United States significantly worse off than under current law. “Without a full score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), we do not yet have a complete understanding of the full devastation that Graham-Cassidy would bring, but what we do know is more than enough for all our organizations to unequivocally oppose this bill.”
Other PCUSA organizations that signed the letter included Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options (PARO) and the Presbyterian Feminist Agenda Network.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) is a member of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the nation’s “premier civil and human rights coalition.”
Other religious organizations also signed the letter, including:
- The National Council of Churches, which the PCUSAs one of its 38 “member communions” also signed the letter.
- Jewish Council for Public Affairs
- Jewish Women International
- Metropolitan Community Churches
- NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice
- The United Methodist Church — General Board of Church and Society
- Union for Reform Judaism
- United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries
- Women’s Missionary Society African Methodist Episcopal Church
Read the letter
On behalf of The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Health Law Program, the National Partnership for Women & Families, and the undersigned 234 organizations, we urge you to oppose the Graham-Cassidy proposal (Graham-Cassidy). This proposal will eliminate affordable quality health care for millions of Americans by gutting the Affordable Care Act (ACA); slash federal funding and destroy Medicaid by turning its funding into per capita caps; eliminate the Medicaid expansion; and defund Planned Parenthood health centers. Graham-Cassidy would leave tens of millions of people in the United States significantly worse off than under current law. Without a full score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), we do not yet have a complete understanding of the full devastation that Graham-Cassidy would bring, but what we do know is more than enough for all our organizations to unequivocally oppose this bill. We strongly urge you to oppose the Graham-Cassidy proposal and urge Congress to instead move forward with bipartisan efforts on market stabilization and other critical issues to improve access to affordable health care for all people in the United States.
The ACA and Medicaid are critical sources of health coverage for America’s traditionally underserved communities, which our organizations represent. This includes individuals and families living in poverty, people of color, women, immigrants, LGBTQ individuals, individuals with disabilities, seniors, and individuals with limited English proficiency.
The ACA has reduced the number of people without insurance to historic lows, including a reduction of 39 percent of the lowest income individuals. The gains are particularly noteworthy for Latinos, African Americans, and Native Americans. Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders have seen the largest gains in coverage. The nation and our communities cannot afford to go back to a time when they did not have access to comprehensive, affordable coverage. Further, due to the intersectionality between factors, such as race and disability, or sexual orientation and uninsurance, and issues faced by women of color, many individuals may face additional discrimination and barriers to obtaining coverage if the ACA is weakened as a result of this bill.
Medicaid is also critically important, as it insures one of every five individuals in the United States, including one of every three children, 10 million people with disabilities, and nearly two-thirds of people in nursing homes. Medicaid coverage, including the Medicaid expansion, is particularly critical for underserved individuals and especially people of color, because they are more likely to be living with certain chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, which require ongoing screening and services. People of color represent 58 percent of non-elderly Medicaid enrollees. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, African Americans comprise 22 percent of Medicaid enrollment, and Hispanics comprise 25 percent. Medicaid also serves as a crucial program for Asian Americans, 17 percent of whom receive Medicaid, and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders, 37 percent of whom receive Medicaid.
People of color are more likely than White non-Hispanics to lack insurance coverage and are more likely to live in families with low incomes and fall in the Medicaid gap. As a result, the lack of expansion disproportionately affects these communities, as well as women, who make up the majority of poor uninsured adults in states that did not expand Medicaid. For people of color who experienced some of the largest gains in health coverage since the implementation of the ACA and Medicaid expansion, the Graham-Cassidy proposal could mean vastly reduced access to needed health care, increased medical debt, and persistent racial disparities in mortality rates. Further, Medicaid provides home and community-based services enabling people with disabilities to live, work, attend school, and participate in their communities. The proposed cuts would decimate the very services that are cost-effective and keep individuals out of nursing homes and institutions. Finally, one in five people with Medicare rely on Medicaid to cover vital long-term home care and nursing home services, to help afford their Medicare premiums and cost-sharing, and more.
Despite the common myth that all low-income people could enroll in Medicaid, the Medicaid program had previously only been available to certain categories of individuals (e.g., children, pregnant women, seniors, people with disabilities) who had little to no savings or assets. Parents of children and childless adults were often excluded from Medicaid or only the lowest income individuals in these categories were eligible. For example, the Medicaid expansion greatly expanded coverage for LGBTQ individuals who previously did not fit into a traditional Medicaid eligibility category and for working people struggling in jobs that do not offer health insurance and pay at or near the minimum wage. Yet the Graham-Cassidy proposal repeals Medicaid expansion and cuts billions from Medicaid itself which will force states to cut eligibility and services.
We do not yet have a full CBO score that tells us how many people would have Medicaid or marketplace coverage taken away from them under the Graham-Cassidy bill, and we will not have that estimate before legislation may come up on the Senate floor. But the analysis that is already available provides a stark picture, one in which Graham-Cassidy would decimate the Medicaid program as we know it, end the Medicaid expansion, defund Planned Parenthood health centers, and rescind tax credits and cost-sharing reductions currently available to low-income individuals to purchase private coverage.
The Graham-Cassidy bill makes fundamental changes to both the Medicaid expansion and the traditional Medicaid program, as well as dismantling ACA’s reforms to the individual market. Graham-Cassidy destroys the Medicaid program, ending the federal-state partnership and dramatically altering the structure of the program by implementing a per capita cap. The bill would cut billions of dollars of funding to states, limiting the federal contribution to states based on a state’s historical expenditures, which would be inflated at a rate that is projected to be less than the annual growth of Medicaid costs. Any costs above the per capita caps would be the sole responsibility of states, regardless of the cost of care. As a result, per capita caps will cause deep cuts in care for people with disabilities, seniors, women, and people of color who qualify for Medicaid. Women, who comprise the majority of Medicaid adult enrollees, would be particularly harmed, with women of color disproportionately impacted. Thirty percent of African-American women and 24 percent of Hispanic women aged 15-44 are enrolled in Medicaid. The move to per capita caps would also disproportionately harm people with disabilities, with home- and community-based services likely targeted for cuts by many states. The move to per capita caps may also give states the option to turn the entire Medicaid program into a block grant.
With regard to the Medicaid expansion, under the Graham-Cassidy plan, ACA tax credits and Medicaid expansion funding would be converted into block grants to states. The Medicaid expansion would effectively end at the beginning of 2020, and the block grants would end entirely in 2026. Graham-Cassidy would cut funding for the expansion under the new block grant system, with funding for the block grants set at 17 percent less than current funding, providing insufficient funds to maintain ACA coverage levels. Beginning in 2021, Graham-Cassidy would also redistribute this reduced federal funding stream across states based on their share of low-income residents instead of their actual spending needs, punishing states that have enrolled more low-income people. Furthermore, and deeply troubling, the legislative language describing what purposes the block grants could be used for is very broad, with no requirement that block grant funds even be used to aid low or moderate-income people.
As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has noted, once the block grant funding stops in 2026, Graham-Cassidy would effectively repeal the ACA’s major coverage provisions without a replacement. CBO has previously estimated that this approach would result in 32 million more people being uninsured. Graham-Cassidy is even more harmful than prior repeal approaches however, in part because states could not continue to cover Medicaid expansion enrollees in Medicaid with less federal funding.
Furthermore, we are very concerned that Graham-Cassidy gives states the option to impose a work requirement as a condition of eligibility under the Medicaid program. Such a requirement not only fails to further the purpose of providing health care but also undermines this objective. Among adults with Medicaid coverage, nearly 8 in 10 live in working families and a majority are working themselves. This work requirement would include penalizing any woman who does not meet work requirements just 60 days after the end of her pregnancy.
In addition, Graham-Cassidy would single out Planned Parenthood by blocking federal Medicaid funds for care at its health centers. The “defunding” of Planned Parenthood would prevent more than half of its patients from getting affordable preventive care, including birth control, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, breast and cervical cancer screenings, and well-women exams at Planned Parenthood health centers, often the only care option in their area. This loss of funds will have a disproportionate effect on low income families and people of color who make up 40 percent of Planned Parenthood patients. Seventy-five percent of Planned Parenthood patients are at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level and half of their health centers are in rural or underserved areas. One in five women in the United States have relied on Planned Parenthood for healthcare in her lifetime.
Lastly, we are seriously concerned about the lack of transparency of the discussions leading to Graham-Cassidy, and the rush now to vote on the bill without adequate time for analysis, hearings, and a full CBO score, which would provide opportunity for both lawmakers and the public to understand the proposed legislation and participate in this discussion in which their very access to health care for themselves and their families is at stake. It is unconscionable to even contemplate dramatically altering one-sixth of the U.S. economy and taking away health care from millions of people without a full CBO score in hand, along with adequate time to review the CBO’s findings and debate the Graham-Cassidy bill with all the facts.
We urge you to oppose passage of the Graham-Cassidy bill and instead focus on moving forward with bipartisan efforts on market stabilization and other critical issues to improve access to affordable health care for all people in the United States. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact The Leadership Conference Health Care Task Force Co-chairs Katie Martin at the National Partnership for Women & Families (firstname.lastname@example.org), Mara Youdelman at the National Health Law Program (email@example.com), or Emily Chatterjee at The Leadership Conference (firstname.lastname@example.org).
You’re no longer relevant. You’ll be lucky to even get lip service from the US Senate. Time to close the DC lobbying office and return to Louisville. Keeping it is a total waste of money better spent on mission programs.
Well I see that all the usual suspects signed the letter. The ACA is not insurance, it’s tyranny, with the high deductibles that covers hardly anything until you meet it, or the fact that Planned parenthood is getting a dime from the taxpayer is more than enough reasons to repeal it.
As usual the louisville sluggers act they speak for us (THEY DON’T) however that’s not stopped them. I wonder if they take a knee during televised NFL games in solidarity with overpaid pampered pro football players during the National Athem. They only thing these people understand is their power and our money, without our money these people are nothing and it’s time those of us in the pcusa stop giving to any pcusa entity that supports this pap.
Since the pcusa is such an expert and such a powerful lobby force (sic), why don’t they come up with some sincere solutions to fix this healthcare trauma pushed on all taxpayers. In my state, every private health care insurance company has left, gone, pfft. Those poor souls I talk to are suffering every day–either by stress of not being able to pay past bills, or the stress of worrying about how they’ll afford the next doctor visit– under the current costly system. ObamaCare Tax is a failure.
The Left in general, PCUSA among them, hang their abortion hat on this hook of so called “women empowerment”. That a baby is not a baby, a human being is not a human being, until a mother says or declares it so. It rests on the same ethical and moral foundation of slavery in the antebellum South. That a slave is not a human being, a man a man, until an owner, over-seerer, says or declares it so. That the basic condition of humanity, life, lies not in the domain of that which is alive, but located in other person with powers of life and death over another human being.
Yes, slave owners for millennia enjoyed such powers, Nazi guards in the death camps enjoyed such power. And now the PCUSA will fight tooth and nail, to the ‘death’ to enable other human beings the rights and legality to kill other human beings based solely upon a concept of personal choice not found in any foundation documents of the Republic. Or the faith. So in essence for at least 40 years since Row. The PCUSA is by actions and behaviors is the denomination of death, and death does indeed surround it. in more ways than one.
Such hate in these posts. Not Christlike at all.
Tragic for all who penned/signed this letter. Even more so for those “shepherds” who continue to lead their flocks away from Scripture, the Savior, and toward eternal darkness.
Long ago, God the Father wrote “Mene, mene tekel upharsin” across the façade of the PCUSA. But leading the sheep–including young children–away from biblical truth? Jesus had a word for them. It involved a millstone.