💬 To the Keyboard Warriors: Turn Down the Talking Points and Look at the Bigger Picture

Every election season, it seems like a few self-appointed experts pop up in local comment threads armed with memes, partisan talking points, and a lot of misplaced confidence. I’ve read your comments about my proposal based on House Bill 96 and our proposed senior property-tax credit, and I get it — tax policy sounds like politics. But this isn’t about ideology. It’s about math, compassion, and fiscal responsibility. But hey I get it, you were told by someone that compassion and empathy are bad, but this case it's about saving government money.

Let’s take off the partisan glasses for a moment and talk about what actually costs taxpayers more — keeping a senior safely in their home or forcing them into a Medicaid-funded facility when property taxes make aging in place impossible.

AI Generated Image

🏠 Aging in Place: The Smarter, Cheaper, and More Humane Option

The data is clear. In Ohio, the cost of home-based care averages about $75,000 per year for a senior receiving 44 hours of home-health aide services per week. Non-medical homemaker services average $28 per hour, and medical home-health care about $32 per hour. Adult day care — an option that allows seniors to remain home with part-time support — costs around $117 per day.

Now compare that to institutional care. The average assisted-living facility in Ohio runs around $66,000 per year, while a nursing-home semi-private room costs about $108,000 annually, and a private room exceeds $120,000. Those costs are borne largely by Medicaid once a senior has spent down their savings.

So when a senior loses their home because they can’t afford property taxes, they often end up in the most expensive system we have — one paid by all of us through state and federal Medicaid dollars.

💰 Medicaid Math Doesn’t Lie

Multiple studies, including those published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, show that even a 1 percent increase in home- and community-based services

(HCBS) spending results in:

• 47 fewer nursing-home residents, and

• $7.3 million in Medicaid long-term-care savings.

For every $1 invested in HCBS, states save roughly 26 cents in reduced nursing-home utilization. That may sound small, but at scale, those savings compound into millions that can be reinvested in local services and senior programs.

Medicaid already covers over 40 percent of all long-term-care spending nationwide. Nursing homes are more than three times as expensive as home-based options. And unpaid family caregivers — the backbone of “aging in place” — save the system an estimated $67 billion each year.

🧮 The Bigger Picture

So, before you post another comment parroting that “tax credits are handouts,” remember: this proposal saves money, keeps families together, and respects the people who built our community. HB 96 doesn’t shift burdens — it prevents bigger ones.

When seniors stay in their homes, they remain taxpayers, consumers, and neighbors — not Medicaid recipients in institutional care. The senior tax credit is simply good governance. It costs less, delivers better outcomes, and reflects the values of a community that takes care of its own.

Maybe that’s not a partisan talking point. Maybe it’s just common sense.