Michael

Texas, Louisiana and 12 other U.S. states that are declining to expand Medicaid under President Barack Obama’s health overhaul will lose at least $8.4 billion in federal funding in 2016 alone, a study found.

“State policy makers should be aware that if they do not expand Medicaid, fewer people will have health insurance and state and local governments will have to bear higher costs for uncompensated care,” wrote Carter Price and Christine Eibner, researchers with the Rand Corp. in Arlington, Virginia.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...n-on-the-table

However they still have 6 months to make a decision and wonder how many will fold.

Boomhauer

Lets screw poor people just to f$%k with Obama..........

WEBlue

Exactly!!! What is WRONG with some Republicans????

Speedwell

Read that as "Let's screw public health just to f$%k with Obama...." After all, when disease runs rampant in poor communities, among the people who work in restaurants and bag groceries and clean homes and offices and take care of babies in day care, there is no such thing as "rich people immunity".

Xebedee

Some?

Michael

The only thing almost as dumb was when Christie before he developed a pair and Scott who is dumb as rock turned down stimulus funds. For years New Jersey was waiting for federal funding (about 20% is normal) to build a tunnel and Christie was offered 85% federal funding for the project. With all the taxes collected from the companies and workers hired for the project as well as service support workers hired and lower unemployment compensation paid, the state would have easily collected or saved at least 15% more in taxes giving the state a surplus from the funding but due to pressure form the right, Christie bowed to the pressure.

Pulaski

Well it's $8.4bn that the federal government doesn't have, and won't have in 2016. Finding current and on-going healthcare expenses with borrowings is as daft as running up a credit card bill buying groceries. If you don't have the money, you can't afford it; successive presidents and congresses of both parties have failed to recognise this, which is what got the country in to the mess it's in today.

Michael

For 2013, the federal deficit is estimated at 4% of gdp by the CBO which is well below the average for the austerity driven Euro area, the unemployment rate is 7.5% as compared to 12.1% in the Euro area, there has been 15 consecutive quarters of gdp growth as compare to 6 consecutive quarters of negative gdp growth for the Euro area, and the CBO estimates that the federal deficit will be 2.1% of gdp by 2015.

Besides that point, states and local governments as well as hospitals and health care providers are already paying much of the cost for the uninsured so refusing federal funding hurts individuals as well as taxpayers and health care providers in the state. States that accept funding will likely have an easier time balancing their budget. It is pure math from a state's point of view but then republicans don't seem to believe in math or science.

Some states already provide Medicaid to people above the minimum federal requirement and only get 50% federal funding for those people. If the one of those states is in the group that reject expanding Medicaid, the burden to state tax payers is even greater since the new program funds Medicaid fully for 3 years and will slowly reduce federal funding to 70%. So states like California, New York, and New Jersey would be crazy to reject the new Medicaid funds. I doubt Texas is in that category since about 25% of the population is uninsured but the state currently spends about $10 billion annually for medical support to health care providers (private and county hospitals as well as other support).

So it is more about who is going to pay the medical bills than increased costs to the government since the big bills are for ER and hospitalization which typically are defaulted on by the unisured.

sir_eccles

But scandal Irs benghazi...

Pulaski

I understand all the counterarguments, but given the poor financial state of the US government, and notwithstanding the fact that other countries are worse off, it still seems to me that Obamacare is better than the currently practiced alternatives, but that does not necessarily make it a great deal.

scrubbedexpat099

And nothing changes....

Anyway I thought Obama care was going to save money?

Pulaski

As high up in Colorado as you are, your head must be in the clouds!

Michael

I would agree if the US had an excessive safety net like many European countries but health care reform is primarily a shift in cost from state and local governments to the federal government that can borrow money more cheaply. Now if there was a significant expansion in welfare, I'd likely be opposed but I'm not against a significant expansion in infrastructure to remain completive as a nation as well as it is desperately needed. Now is the time for an increase in infrastructure spending since it is not a permanent program and the economy needs a boost and then can be cut back as the economy improves and borrowing costs increase. However politicians seem to do everything the wrong way.

State and local tax laws are normally regressive (sales and property taxes affect the poor and middle class more than the rich) so shifting the tax burden to the federal government is a more fair approach to taxes.

I also agree that many European government have to do something about their excessive safety net after the economy recovers but not right now. They also have to do something about their crippling worker rights laws that keep employers from hiring and unemployment rates high and that can be done anytime.

Sally Redux

Giantaxe

The CBO projects that it will decrease the deficit over ten years. Others disagree.