Baucus’ Plan or Why Not Copying Zimbabwe’s Health Care System?
posted at 9:06 am on September 28, 2009 by Michael van der Galien
Although Democrats’ original health care plan was so horrible that you would assume that any alternative is per definition better, the Wall Street Journal explains that Max Baucus’ changes aren’t exactly the kind of plan America needs either:
The more we inspect Max Baucus’s health-care bill, the worse it looks. Today’s howler: One reason it allegedly “pays for itself” over 10 years is because it would break all 50 state budgets by permanently expanding Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for the poor.
Democrats want to use Medicaid to cover everyone up to at least 133% of the federal poverty level, or about $30,000 for a family of four. Starting in 2014, Mr. Baucus plans to spend $287 billion through 2019—or about one-third of ObamaCare’s total spending—to add some 11 million new people to the Medicaid rolls.
About 59 million people are on Medicaid today—which means that a decade from now about a quarter of the total population would be on a program originally sold as help for low-income women, children and the disabled. State budgets would explode—by $37 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office—because they would no longer be allowed to set eligibility in line with their own decisions about taxes and spending. This is the mother—and father and crazy uncle—of unfunded mandates.
The National Governors Association is furious with Baucus. NGA President Jim Douglas of Vermont said the plan “tremendous financial liability” and doesn’t “respect that no one size fits all at the state level.”
Unlike the federal government, Douglas said, “states can’t print money.”
The WSJ op-ed proceeds to explain that Baucus hopes he can bribe governors into supporting his plan – the only one that could theoretically attract some Republican support:
Mr. Baucus hopes to use his printing press to bribe the governors, at least for a time. Currently, the federal government pays about 57 cents out of every dollar the states spend on Medicaid, though the “matching rate” ranges as high as 76% in some states. That would rise to 95%—but only for five years. After that, who knows? It all depends on which budget Congress ends up ruining. Either the states will be slammed, or Washington will extend these extra payments into perpetuity—despite the fact that CBO expects purely federal spending on Medicaid to consume 5% of GDP by 2035 under current law.
And the poor?
They’ll be shunted off into what Democratic backbencher Ron Wyden calls a “caste system.” While some people will be eligible for subsidized private health insurance, everyone in the lowest income bracket will be forced into Medicaid, the country’s worst insurance program by a long shot. States try to control spending by restricting access to prescription drugs and specialists. About 40% of U.S. physicians won’t accept Medicaid at all.
It’s unbelievable but Democrats have truly outdone themselves this time. Just when you thought they couldn’t produce a lower quality bill, they come out and surprise (well, shock) you.
Next time Democrats may consider simply suggesting copying Zimbabwe‘s health care system; that would save us all a whole lot of trouble.
Recently in the Green Room:
- Sunday reflection: Matthew 4:1-11
- Rand Paul wins CPAC straw poll
- Real question: Does Obama’s budget fund overseas abortions to protect endangered animals?
- Photo of the day: Crimea now belongs to Russia, at least on Russian propaganda TV
- Vatican: Pope Francis wasn’t talking about same-sex relationships; Update: “Civil unions” explained