Let me see if I understand this. President Obama’s health care reform expands the number of people to be enrolled in Medicaid from the current level of 53 million in the quest to expand health care coverage. PPACA partially funds that additional burden placed on the states.
Today, nearly half the states want permission to remove people from the Medicaid roles and are cutting back on the services provided because they do not have the money to pay the benefits.
At the same time state employees are marching in the streets because they are being asked to pay a small portion of the cost of their health benefits.
And you (and the whiz kids in the Administration) thought the main issue for health care was lack of coverage while cost was secondary. Could it be that cost is what inhibits coverage?
Now someone will be quick to point out that most of the states involved have a Republican governor which is true. It is also true that several of the states in the worst financial shape have a Democratic governor and legislation. So what does that mean, Republicans don’t care about the poor and Democrats don’t care about how much debt they create?
Could we be anymore screwed up?
Related Articles
- Medicaid funding busts state budgets (money.cnn.com)
- Medicaid Revisited (centerforhealthmediapolicy.com)
- Feds authorize limited Medicaid cuts (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Kaiser Health News (threefishlimit.wordpress.com)
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 