We keep hearing about states that may opt out of the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion. But there’s a strong argument that states headed up by even the most dogmatic opponents of reform–like Gov. Rick Perry’s Texas–will end up opting in.
As Jay Hancock of Kaiser Health News notes (and I agree), “Insurers are expected to join hospitals and patient advocates to fight for Medicaid expansion and what are enormous amounts of money.” He adds, “If there’s one thing more powerful than Republican governors’ dislike of the Affordable Care Act…it may turn out to be the business interests in their own states.”
I also sincerely believe that public pressure to help millions of poor people will simply force the hands of the Rick Perrys of the world. Call it the “better angels of our nature” argument. As Jonathan Cohn says, “I remain convinced that most states will choose to participate in the Medicaid expansion before January 1, 2014, and that the holdouts will come within a few years after that. But I’m confident of that only because I’m confident that politicians will feel political pressure to do so—and progressives must do their part to create it.”
Subscribe in RSS Reader
How nice that the very people who vote for progressives want the free rides that progressives hand out from other people’s taxes. As far as insurers are concerned, all the tax money being handed out as free premiums for insurers will not even start to cover all the money expected to be handed out by insurers for claims without end. Insurers look at both sides of the balance sheet, not just the side that the media wants us to look at. Nobody is fooled by all this tax-and-spend garbage into believing that this is sound economic policy for our country, except for those privileged free riders who love our money and will vote for anyone who will steal it for them.
Poor people are no different from the rest of us in needing to be responsible for their own lives. Demanding “charity” from the rest of us and forcing us to donate “charity” is pure highway robbery, and comes nowhere close to touching our inner angel. Our political elite call their patronage “charity” to make it smell better, but bribery to the poor cannot be disguised as being virtuous. Politicians need to realize that there are only so many people they can bribe with tax money, and that the people who get their taxes stolen by the government vote, too.
My vote will be for the politicians who kick all these freeloaders off the dole and back to paying for themselves. Just look around and you will see lots more like me who feel the same way. We are sick and tired of paying for freeloaders who refuse to pay for themselves and stick us with the bill. Get off the dole, and pay your own way!
I just don’t understand where the money can come from for these programs. How can we as a country keep borrowing money? It is time we stop spending and start paying down our debts.
James,
It’s a valid question, and I hear it all the time. ObamaCare reduces the deficit according to CBO. But let’s assume CBO is wrong, and it requires more borrowing as you say.
My question is if we could find $1.6 trillion to rescue Wall Street and $1 trillion to fight two wars and $1 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy since 2001 (the Bush tax cuts), then why can’t we pay for healthcare for the poor at a fraction of the cost?
My view is we can. It’s just a matter of deciding what we want to spend our money on.
Anonymous,
The cost of healthcare for either Medicare alone or Obamacare is just plain not affordable – CBO estimate or not. The assumptions are that prevention and computerization of medical records are going to reduce overall healthcare costs, but the opposite is likely to be true. People have been promising lower costs by spending more for decades – with resulting higher costs. Go figure.
SR,
The idea that Medicare and ObamaCare “is just plain not afforable” is somehow taken as a given. Again, if we can bail out Wall Street for $1.6 trillion, fight two wars at $1 trillion and give tax cuts to the wealthy (the Bush tax cuts) for $1 trillion, then why can’t we pay for healthcare for the poor at a fraction of the cost? The answer is we can. Want more? The tax deduction for morgage interest is $100 billion a year (the cost of ObamaCare), healthcare administrative costs are $160 billion a year and could be reduced by $100 billion if we achieved international benchmarks.
ObamaCare raises healthcare cost trends 10 basis points annually–and for that 30 million more people are covered and many more will receive much better coverage then they already have. And if better care coordination, revamped provider incentives, technology and more can start to get at overall trends, the more the better.
So, in a nutshell, SR, you’re wrong.
The numbers tell a different story. There are about 12 million who are today uninsured, who were previously eligible for Medicaid and who did not enroll. These individuals are not eligible for the enhanced match of Obamacare, but only the basic (+/- 50% match). Assuming that the cost of coverage is around $5,000 pmpy, that’s $60 billion annual expense or about $30 billion that the states have to find. Difficult to impossible in today’s environment.
Carl- Since when is a deduction for mortgage interest considered a tax cut for the wealthy? As a middle class homeowner with the benefit of that deduction factored in to keep my house and support my own family budget, I for one am not willing to move to an apt or subsidized government housing to provide healthcare coverage ofr people who chose not to work in any capacity or make any effort to comply with current citizenship requirements.
Dear Anon,
It’s not a tax break for the wealthy. It’s a regressive tax loophole that largely benefits the middle class–one that I happily took advantage of when I had a mortgage. My point is that you and me and many others with mortgages are getting a freebie from the government to the tune of $100 billion per year. So why are you so upset when the government wants to give healthcare to the poor at roughly the same cost. It’s not about whether the mortgage deduction is right or wrong per se. It’s about fairness.