So the Obama administration’s proposal to pay home health care workers the minimum wage has met with resistance from Medicaid Directors from Arizona and Tennessee, who are requesting more time to “work through” and “re-evaluate” how the the new rule works with Medicaid. In an editorial in today’s New York Times, the editors point out that the rule change has been researched and analyzed for two years prior to its presentation in September, 2013 and states were given “an ample fifteen months to comply” (May 17, 2014).

What the heck, Arizona?  In this same week you were exposed for falsifying the wait time for Veterans to receive health services, in some cases resulting in the death of patients. You are already the least hospitable state to immigrant workers, many of whom occupy these health care positions for sub-standard pay. And you are one of the prime locations for senior citizens, who are the direct beneficiaries of these services,  to retire.  What is your problem?

First, the idea that home health care workers are not worth a minimum wage is an outrage that has existed since 1974, on the pretext that these workers are “companions,” a polite term for “slaves.”  It is no coincidence that many of these jobs are occupied by immigrants and others lacking the professional skills for less arduous work.  Yet these workers are crucial to transferring the expense of nursing home expenses to the more hospitable  home environment.  With the exponential increase of the baby boom retirees, these workers are in increasing demand. Why is their work worth less than the minimum wage?

Second, Arizona’s economy depends on a disproportionate population of senior citizens.  Admittedly these are not the highest tax-payers, but they are a primary constituency of the state.  How can they treat Veterans and those in need of home health care with such disdain?

Third, Arizona has worked as hard as any other state to disenfranchise both seniors and immigrants by making it harder for them to register to vote.  The idea that these powerless groups should gain influence and vote them out of office has been repugnant to the governor and state legislators.

There is a term to identify those who freeload on the resources of tax-payers. We call them “slackers,” because they don’t contribute to the welfare of those that serve them. If a state can be nominated for this title, it has to be Arizona, because it has demonstrated contempt for the welfare of seniors and veterans this week.