Some “windfall”: Would it actually cost Missouri nearly $800 million to expand Medicaid?
Long story short, things could get a lot more expensive for Missouri to participate in Medicaid than the Post-Dispatch’s report would indicate. Kaiser’s “standard” participation scenario indeed predicts that Missouri would have to pick up $431 million in new spending. But, if the program’s participation rate is higher, the state could be stuck with somewhere around $773 million in new spending. And that is just for the years 2014-19. Legislators can count on at least an extra $100 million to $150 million each year after that to pay for the expansion, and possibly much, much more if participation rates are higher.
And where, exactly, would all of that money come from? You, of course, through higher taxes and/or reduced state services elsewhere. And that is completely neglecting the fact that Missourians would not be getting a “windfall” of federal dollars. Taxpayers are the government. We would be paying ourselves. If participation in Missouri’s Medicaid program rises, the cost to the federal government will increase, meaning not only will taxpayers be spending more money through the state, but they will have to spend more money through the feds, as well.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
What ObamaTax/’care’ asks of the states is extortion.
Good thing they don’t have to go for it.
Schadenfreude on July 10, 2012 at 12:39 AM
I notice on all this talk about raising taxes on those who make $250K that they don’t mention the taxes kicking in on employers for Obamacare. Do most of these small business folks that file their business as personal income not impacted by Obamacare?
Cindy Munford on July 10, 2012 at 12:40 AM
A good reason for states to resist Obamacare by refusing to set up the exchanges is the protection this affords small business. As 73 U.S. Senators and Representatives have written in a letter to the National Governor’s Association, encouraging this:
In other words, if a state refuses to set up the exchange, it protects its business from the penalties.
de rigueur on July 10, 2012 at 1:12 AM
I love my free healthcare!
Thank you Obama!
tom daschle concerned on July 10, 2012 at 1:23 AM
i saw a small part of a panel of journos from lat, nyt, etc (i.e. left-wing activists) laughing about all the states turning down the medicaid money…and how funny it was that the stupid hicks in the red states will be subsiding the blue state
so MO is slated for 8B? the stl post-dispatch probably thinks that 8B comes from barry’s unicorn farm
it must be weird being a stupid leftist…i mean not knowing about where electricity comes from, or money…not knowing s***
weird
r keller on July 10, 2012 at 1:27 AM
Have you seen any of the commercials for Obamacare? You would think that the doctor fairy had just come to town. The thing I don’t understand about the exchanges is that some states are so strict about their insurance that a lot companies won’t write for their state. I read that New York and Connecticut have almost no choices or competition. It’s confusing since I’ve heard that Obamacare is going to require top drawer coverage, so will those states actually be improved?
Cindy Munford on July 10, 2012 at 1:30 AM
Do you think they know it’s their money?
Cindy Munford on July 10, 2012 at 1:31 AM
r keller on July 10, 2012 at 1:27 AM
I think they grossly under-estimated the bureaucracy needed to implement this. And assumed that, in any event, Congress would easily fork over the additional funding the Congress failed to provide the first time around (for example, to set up the exchanges in states that don’t set them up themselves– there is no funding in the bill for the Feds to do this). If enough states opt out of the Medicare expansion and setting up the insurance exchanges, the whole Obamacare scheme could collapse from under-funding. Those states will laugh last.
de rigueur on July 10, 2012 at 1:38 AM
Cindy Munford on July 10, 2012 at 1:30 AM
I’ve seen a few of the commercials. Almost like “It’s Morning in America for Obamacare.”
No idea how all the Federal requirements will improve or degrade the various insurance offerings in the different states, except that they’ll become a lot more expensive, a lot more uniform, and over time, a lot fewer of them (which likely is the idea, to get us to
Fed-financedtaxpayer financed single-payer asap). Almost sounds like all the states could wind up being New York and Connecticut.de rigueur on July 10, 2012 at 1:44 AM
I hope it gets stopped.
Cindy Munford on July 10, 2012 at 2:23 AM
The L.A. Times had an article yesterday which reported that the Medicaid expansion (which the idiots in Sacramento are all too happy to participate in) is estimated to cost California at least another $2.65 billion per year, and that is based on conservative estimates. If more people than expected end up applying for Medi-Cal coverage (with the newly-relaxed eligibility requirements), the costs to California taxpayers could go much higher.
But since California has so much money to burn, what’s a few extra billion every year, right?
AZCoyote on July 10, 2012 at 6:53 AM
What an effin’ mess…
Blake on July 10, 2012 at 7:22 AM
I find it hard to believe that it’s constitutional to make people in states pay taxes to the US government for something optional that their state doesn’t participate in. I don’t think a nation can survive such a policy for long. There is no good reason for a state to remain in the union if it’s going to be taxed for something it doesn’t want.
Buddahpundit on July 10, 2012 at 7:46 AM
Arugula and peas, mmmmm
FineasFinn on July 10, 2012 at 7:55 AM
‘Affordable’ Care Act? Not so much for Sacramento
BallisticBob on July 10, 2012 at 8:19 AM
Let’s not forget the costs to the taxpayer who has to send the money to the Federal government and as a result, won’t be spending it in Missouri in other parts of the economy.
That seems to be missed. Part of the Broken Window fallacy.
ProfShadow on July 10, 2012 at 8:47 AM
Will we pay EXTRA tax dollars for Nebraska due to the kickback, secret deal, Democrat Sen Ben Nelson made in exchange for his vote for (100% funding) Obamacare?? Also, aren’t there 5 states who receive full federal funding?
Sigh
TN Mom on July 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM
I think the SCOTUS ruling ended up killing the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase.
In Louisiana’s case, it’s dead anyway because Jindal has blocked the MediCare expansion and insurance exchanges, though the Baton Rouge media is trying to turn public opinion against him over this.
I don’t think they’ll be successful at this, as Jindal won re-election in a romp and has very high approval ratings. Most of the people who are complaining about this were in the “Anybody But Bobby” crowd last time anyway.
teke184 on July 10, 2012 at 10:17 AM