Former Aberdeen mayor Levsen: Amendment F supporters are wrong to accuse South Dakotans of not working hard enough

Why do Amendment F supporters have such a low opinion of our South Dakota folks and our work ethic?

After years of dithering and refusing to accept the benefits of expanded Medicaid  (which will operate inside the federal framework of Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services, as seen in the public domain graphic above, as posted on wikimedia commons), South Dakota joined the program in 2023. There was no persuasive argument for not doing so when this first became available in 2014; the fiscal and humanitarian benefits were clear and indisputable. However, it was a part of Obamacare and that association with President Obama has been just too much for our “principled” legislators and governor to swallow.

Forty states have enrolled and lowered their uninsured numbers significantly. Red herring arguments about “federal strings” and future complications were voiced — arguments not raised when some other benefits came our way.

In 2022, South Dakota voters bypassed the Legislature and mandated joining the expanded coverage. Thousands of our residents will gain access to better care for their families without the fear of medical bankruptcy. Many who have made health-endangering choices based on affordability will now more closely experience health care as a human right, not a family budget decision.

Or will they? Our one-party Legislature has brought Amendment F to the ballot; it would force applicants to prove they are worthy. Folks will have to swear they are really trying to work and pay for the care themselves. Seems reasonable, perhaps, but why should low-income people have to do this when users of other government plans do not?

Disclaimer: I am a recipient of thousands of dollars worth of annual Federal Crop Insurance assistance. I haven’t been on a tractor in over 50 years, but my benefit comes without having to prove I deserve it. This farm program has been determined to be in the best interest of the agricultural economy. That’s reasonable and defensible and I qualify because I own land.

Ethanol subsidy dollars work their way to me also — with no additional strings attached. Plenty of other good government programs also dispense dollars without asking if the recipient is working.

It has now also been deemed in the best interest of the country that low-income people have access to medical care. Health care is not for good people, or successful people, or even for only responsible people. It’s for all people.

That’s also reasonable and defensible. Yet, Amendment F would force qualified low-income residents to prove they are not freeloaders lying on the couch watching “The Price is Right” when they should be out working.

This is a solution in search of a problem based on the false perception that significant numbers of those in need are lazy. That’s demonstrably wrong. Most able recipients are already working at low-paying jobs and those who are not are often disabled, single parenting, or children.

Surviving on public assistance program levels in South Dakota is a day-to-day struggle and not sustainable. It’s just not reasonable to assume lots of our neighbors are loafing on purpose rather than wanting to work, but that is the logic of Amendment F proponents. Other states with this extra requirement have not found notable numbers of lazy cheaters milking the system but many needy folks have missed care due to not navigating the extra steps to enroll.

It is responsible for legislators to want tax-supported programs to be efficient. However, they seem much more bothered by unworthy applicants getting benefits than by really needy applicants being denied assistance. Wouldn’t it be better to try to be sure we don't miss those needing help, even if it means some will game the system? A high level of program integrity can be achieved through a well-run executive branch agency and doesn’t have to shame our neighbors in the process.

Voting no on Amendment F affirms our belief that we are actually the good people we say we are.

If voters decide those accessing Medicaid must prove they really need the money, perhaps I and all non-working landowners with Federal Crop Insurance should be required to prove we couldn't afford to pay for 100% of the coverage ourselves.

Or, get back on the tractor?

Mike Levsen is a former mayor of Aberdeen and a regular contributor to The South Dakota Standard.