Overwhelming Medicaid enrollment crippling state budgets

[piezoe]

Can you explain why every state that added Medicaid expansion is projecting Medicaid budget issues starting in 2017? On average the states experienced 70% greater enrollment than they expected - how can you claim this will not impact the upcoming state budgets. The states screaming the loudest about this problem are traditional blue states - which are projected to have the greatest un-budgeted additional costs due to Medicaid expansion.

Obviously all the "studies by economists have concluded that the additional revenues" covering the expanded Medicaid costs are not holding water. In fact they are complete bunk when it comes to the state budget situations.

As I said earlier you can make a case on the social benefits vs. the total cost of Obamacare, but you cannot deny that Medicaid expansion will be a wrecking ball to state budgets post-2017. All these states will be screaming for the Feds to pick up the unexpected cost, this will be occurring directly at a time where the budget constraints in Washington due to excessive debt will be the top problem.

It is difficult to separate cause and effect when it comes to spending and revenue. I won't be at all surprised if States are strapped for cash come 2017. The difficult question is what is causing it. You can get a very accurate figure for how much medicaid expansion is costing. You'll have a hell of a time, however, getting an accurate figure for the impact of expansion on revenue.

It won't be a surprise to anyone if the States find expansion is costing them far more than was projected, or say it is.. We have totally out of control medical costs in the U.S., so being faced with an outrageous bill is par for the course. What do you do about that? Stop using medical care? I hardly think so!

What you do, is go ahead and let a crisis be created. Then you are forced to go back and fix the problem correctly -- Do the things that should have been done in the first place. Or alternatively buy 2400 F35s instead of 2500. (I don't like this latter kind of solution by the way, as it doesn't get to the cause. It is no good budget cutting elsewhere because your medical costs are too high. That only makes matters worse.)

In the meantime I'm thoroughly pissed at having to ship my medicaid tax dollars to blue states and get nothing in return. It's an outrage, and it is going to do nothing at all toward fixing the problem of out of control medical costs. What it will do however is bring us a step closer to Bangledesh.

 

[Arnie]

So Piehole, which is it?

There are a number of cost projections done by economists....Virtually all of them show a wash for costs, with the additional revenue and savings making up for the States 10% contribution by 2020. Note how slowly the State contributions are being phased in. There will be more than enough time to make adjustments where appropriate!

Your point is well taken, and well stated as far as I'm concerned. There is plenty wrong with O'bamneycare. Expansion of medicaid is NOT one of them.

Or this...

I won't be at all surprised if States are strapped for cash come 2017.

It won't be a surprise to anyone if the States find expansion is costing them far more than was projected, or say it is..

...so being faced with an outrageous bill is par for the course.

 

[der_kommissar]

What you do, is go ahead and let a crisis be created. Then you are forced to go back and fix the problem correctly -- Do the things that should have been done in the first place.

I'd argue that we already "let a crisis be created" in the decades leading up to O'Care...Heck, we can even survey some of the threads on this site that discussed premiums skyrocketing and the unaffordability of health insurance...in many cases, catastrophic plans were the last option (and they weren't really "cheap" any longer either)...but we didn't "go back and fix the problem correctly"...we doubled down and made the problem far worse...instead those who couldn't jump into the Medicaid/Medicare pool were faced with a really bad "catastrophic plan" with sky high deductibles and higher premiums...

So essentially, we have to let another crisis manifest and then try to "fix it again"...kinda sounds like the stock market over the past twenty years...each fix is worse than the problem.

 

[der_kommissar]

So Piehole, which is it?

There are a number of cost projections done by economists....Virtually all of them show a wash for costs, with the additional revenue and savings making up for the States 10% contribution by 2020. Note how slowly the State contributions are being phased in. There will be more than enough time to make adjustments where appropriate!

Your point is well taken, and well stated as far as I'm concerned. There is plenty wrong with O'bamneycare. Expansion of medicaid is NOT one of them.

Or this...

I won't be at all surprised if States are strapped for cash come 2017.

It won't be a surprise to anyone if the States find expansion is costing them far more than was projected, or say it is..

...so being faced with an outrageous bill is par for the course.

That's some damn good "politico talk"...Sounds like alot of campaign speeches that shift according to the demographic in attendance.

 

[loyek590]

When Bill was President and Hillary was First Lady all you ever heard about was "The Healthcare Crisis." Every other word on tv was "Healthcare Crisis." When Hillary's ideas didn't pan out with the insurance companies, the "Healthcare Crisis" just magically disappeared.

 

[piezoe]

When Bill was President and Hillary was First Lady all you ever heard about was "The Healthcare Crisis." Every other word on tv was "Healthcare Crisis." When Hillary's ideas didn't pan out with the insurance companies, the "Healthcare Crisis" just magically disappeared.

It never disappeared, it just disappeared from television to be replaced by ads for prescription pharmaceuticals.

 

[piezoe]

I'd argue that we already "let a crisis be created" in the decades leading up to O'Care...Heck, we can even survey some of the threads on this site that discussed premiums skyrocketing and the unaffordability of health insurance...in many cases, catastrophic plans were the last option (and they weren't really "cheap" any longer either)...but we didn't "go back and fix the problem correctly"...we doubled down and made the problem far worse...instead those who couldn't jump into the Medicaid/Medicare pool were faced with a really bad "catastrophic plan" with sky high deductibles and higher premiums...

So essentially, we have to let another crisis manifest and then try to "fix it again"...kinda sounds like the stock market over the past twenty years...each fix is worse than the problem.

Yup, that's right.

 

[piezoe]

That's some damn good "politico talk"...Sounds like alot of campaign speeches that shift according to the demographic in attendance.

can't disagree here either.

 

[piezoe]

So Piehole, which is it?

There are a number of cost projections done by economists....Virtually all of them show a wash for costs, with the additional revenue and savings making up for the States 10% contribution by 2020. Note how slowly the State contributions are being phased in. There will be more than enough time to make adjustments where appropriate!

Your point is well taken, and well stated as far as I'm concerned. There is plenty wrong with O'bamneycare. Expansion of medicaid is NOT one of them.

Or this...

I won't be at all surprised if States are strapped for cash come 2017.

It won't be a surprise to anyone if the States find expansion is costing them far more than was projected, or say it is..

...so being faced with an outrageous bill is par for the course.

IT's both!! The projections may not match reality, but then again they may. We don't know. But not knowing doesn't justify the political malpractice of the Republican governors who, for purely political reasons, are denying access to routine care to hundreds of thousands in their respective States, cheating their tax paying constituents, and making matters much worse, by pretending to have their constituents best interests at heart, even though the problem of untenable costs for an essential service can't, by definition, be solved by not using that service!!!???

 

[loyek590]

the difference is, I know what food, clothing and shelter are and what is reasonable. I have no idea what healthcare is and how much it should cost. And that is why I think the government should not be involved in anything I don't understand. If I don't understand it, how can I even have an opinion about it?