I think that word “unexpectedly” does not mean what you think it does
It’s always unexpected, except that so often it was expected by conservatives, who really don’t matter:
Medicaid enrollment under Obamacare is skyrocketing past expectations, giving some GOP governors who oppose the program’s expansion under the health law an “I told you so” moment.
More than 12 million people have signed up for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act since January 2014, and in some states that embraced that piece of the law, enrollment is hundreds of thousands beyond initial projections. Seven states have seen particularly big surges, with their overruns totaling nearly 1.4 million low-income adults.
That a surging Medicaid enrollment as a result of Medicaid expansion would be unexpected by anyone is preposterous. If you offer a freebie, people will usually be happy to take it. It was necessary to talk it down in order to try to get Obamacare passed, and to soothe the public into thinking all would be okay and that there really is a free lunch, and that the free lunch would be courtesy of the feds.
But nothing should have been unexpected, as Rick Scott points out when he says: “Name the health care program ”” I think the only one is Medicare Part D ”” that cost less than what they initially anticipated”¦Historically, if you look at the numbers, with the growth in Medicare costs, Medicaid costs, it’s always multiples.”
But, nevertheless, here we have that surprise factor again in the use of the word “startling”:
In some states that did expand, the take-up has been startling ”” the result, officials say, of significant pent-up demand for coverage.
Well, du-uh. Who would have thought we needed “officials” to tell us that?
Beyond the low-income adults that became newly eligible for Medicaid because of the health care law, states have long feared the budget impacts of the “woodwork effect” ”” people previously eligible for Medicaid who are only enrolling now because of the broader outreach surrounding Obamacare. Generally, even the states that have shunned Obamacare Medicaid expansion are seeing enrollment growth.
Not a surprise. Repeat: not a surprise.
The Democrats should be thrilled by this news. They believe that spending more of other peoples money demonstrates their charity. I live in Virginia and those evil Republicans refused to go along with Medicaid expansion despite being called names by the Democrats.
The only ones not expecting the negative ‘ripples’ from Obamacare are the ignorant. Knowledgeable leftists like Gruber not only expect Obamacare’s failure but see it as a feature on the road to government single payer health care.
“Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.” Vladimir Lenin
Fundamentally transforming the American health care system to be more ‘equal’ “means you–particularly you young people, particularly you young, healthy people–you’re going to have to pay more. [applause] Thank you.
“And by the way, we are going to have to–if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive, so we’re going to let you die. [applause]
“Also, I’m going to use the bargaining leverage of the federal government in terms of Medicare, Medicaid–we already have a lot of bargaining leverage–to force drug companies and insurance companies and medical suppliers to reduce their costs. But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents. [applause] Thank you.” 2007, a speech by Robert Reich, who served as President Clinton’s labor secretary
“As noted in our transcription, Reich’s Berkeley, Calif., audience applauded the idea of taxing the young, killing the old, and stifling lifesaving innovations.” http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704107204574473331382043514
So they can wash away their evil by claiming ignorance of the consequences, is that it?
Beyond pent up desire for coverage, I believe that if the applicant’s income was below a certain level they were automatically enrolled in Medicaid. Many didn’t want it, but there was no way out.
And what about the doctors and hospitals that are expected to provide services for the pittance that Medicaid reimburses them? Already one-third of physicians refuse to accept new Medicaid patients, and it’s only going to get worse.
Just as, in Geoffrey Britain’s words, “Obamacare’s failure [is] a feature” rather than an “unexpected” bug, deception on the part of the sponsors of virtually *any* statist program is never “unexpected” but is “a feature”, an indispensible tool in the statists’ collective toolbox.
“Knowledgeable leftists like Gruber,” as well as ObamaBidenReidPelosiClintonWarrenO’Malley know exactly what they’re doing; the deception is knowing and deliberate. In one sense, we with our eyes open are used to it; in another sense, we must *never* get used to it.
I will forgive SCOTUS for its gay marriage case if it guts Obamacare.
snopercod Says:
May 18th, 2015 at 2:17 pm
And what about the doctors and hospitals that are expected to provide services for the pittance that Medicaid reimburses them? Already one-third of physicians refuse to accept new Medicaid patients, and it’s only going to get worse…
You can look forward to meeting Ninian Peckitt.
Lisa M’s comment may be worth noting for some of us who read this blog. I’ve mentioned it before when Neo’s written about Medicaid, but I’m not ashamed of repetition: if you have significant assets, do anything you can to avoid Medicaid.
Medicaid elgibility used to be determined by assets; now it’s determined by annual income, and the income ceiling has been raised. Many people with substantial assets have erratic incomes; so, in a low year, they can be forced into Medicaid.
But Medicaid payments are not a government benefit, they’re a loan. Although the rules vary from state to state, it’s perfectly legal for the state to seize your assets to pay for whatever they think your medical fees should be. Of course, nobody thinks that taxpayers should pay for rich people’s health care, but that’s not the issue. Under Obama’s new rules, many people who had private health insurance have lost it, and have been forced into Medicaid.
What we now have is a system that could ruin many of the self-employed. On my bad days, I can’t help but think that this was intentional. After all, you didn’t build that.
The Left did not use a hundred years to prepare their war on humanity, and come up with a lemon. They’ve got a more in their arsenal than this. A lot more.
Cornhead,
If SCOTUS rules that limiting marriage to one man-one woman is unconstitutional discrimination based upon the 14th amendment’s “Equal protection clause” it will have FAR greater negative societal impact than either Obamacare or its intended heir, single payer.
That is because such a ruling by SCOTUS would implicitly declare that only the “ability to consent” standard is not unconstitutionally discriminatory.
Plural marriage, incestuous marriage between consenting adults and a greatly lowered “age of consent” standard will necessarily follow, as they will now be legally unstoppable.
GB:
Agree with you, but it is 5-4 in favor of SSM.
Scalia’s dissent will be a classic and one for the ages.
Coming up next? Muslim polygamy case. And a much stronger claim as their so-called religion demands polygamy and the First Amendment gives them a metaphorical sword.
I watched David Boies give an hour interview to Jeffery Toobin. Slick. According to that clown there is no rational reason for the way one man-one woman marriage. No rational reason whatsoever. Stunning.
That’s because they are going to lower the age of consent to 13 or 12. That’s why they are sexualizing the children now, “grooming” them for the future, like that Hollywood actor did for his wife.
The Leftists have an extreme number of child molestors, which they can’t get rid of nor do they try to fix. So if they can’t put them into the teacher unions and if they can’t get them into the Catholic Church because the Church has figured out by now what the hell is going on (unless the Pope’s in on it being a Liberation Theology Latin), so the Left has to put them somewhere for them to breed so that homos can claim more than their fair share.
Once the heterosexual age of consent is broken, they’ll will get a better crop of targets then, the Left’s other factions.
When it comes to evil, people’s imaginations are crippled. They do not truly see beyond the front of their face or nose.
Cornhead,
Any future Muslim polygamy case’s resolution before the court would now logically depend upon whether SCOTUS rules for or against SSM.
If against, the same rationale applies regarding Muslim polygamy as does Mormon polygamy. If SCOTUS rules for SSM, the banning of polygamy and any other form of plural marriage collapses.
I’m sure that Toobin is not the only one claiming that there is no rational reason for limiting marriage to one man-one woman. That is easily refuted however and not by relying upon a religious tenet based rationale or ‘ an appeal to tradition’ rationale.
The one man-one woman limitation on defining who may and may not marry is one of the only two objective standards that can be applied to marriage.
The first is the ability to consent.
The second objective standard is the biological fact that only a man and a woman can naturally reproduce. Which is of grave importance as issues surrounding procreation are the state’s primary societal interest in marriage. (Inheritance is a subset)
Once a judicial ruling moves society away from the biologically objective standard of one man-one woman, based in a ‘unequal discrimination’ rationale, every other standard limiting who may or may not marry, such as limiting marriage to two people and degree of consanguinity (relation) become discriminatory as well…
Until we reach the Objective ‘ability’ to consent standard.
The ‘age’ of consent standard remains but as it rests upon an arbitrary and subjective determination of when an individual is able to consent, a lowering of that age to the lowest common denominator becomes unavoidable.
The societal repercussions will be profound.
Insurance reform was processed through raising the poverty line, shifting responsibility (a la environmentalism), and increasing revenue (i.e. taxes). They did not address affordability by way of resolving progressive costs. They did not address availability by way of increasing and improving human and medical resources. They also did not address environmental factors that intrude upon both affordability and availability, including economic and social stability. Basically they offered a wicked solution (a la pro-choice or selective-child) in order to manage a perception.
That said, it seems that today it is normal for everyone to seek to compensate for the comprehensive distortions (e.g. debt, deficits, immigration) in our economy. Perhaps that’s the best outcome we can hope to realize. Republicans should take notice that secular opiates in order to suppress mental and conscience acuity take precedence over all others (e.g. religion or morality) for a large minority and perhaps majority of the population. Actually, everyone has a threshold where where even sacrificial rites become tolerable.
“That’s because they are going to lower the age of consent to 13 or 12.”
Yes, the lowest common denominator for females is the onset of menarche, for males the first ejaculation, both of which occur on average between 12-13.
The false argument that will be made in support of lowering the age of consent to 12-13 will be that psychological studies show that children know right from wrong at about 7 years of age.
That of course does NOT address a child’s lack of emotional maturity and inability to intellectually grasp the long term repercussions of engaging in early sexual activity. Which is and will continue to be ignored and obfuscated by the Left.
Unexpectedly, cats mating with dogs is ‘natural’. Unexpectedly, DC bureaucracies costing far more than projected and running rough shod over the private sector is ‘natural’. Same as it ever was. DC from the beginning has been the enemy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Same as it ever was.
Leftists have this instinct of self preservation. They won’t spit in the faces of fanatics or Muslim head cutters, cause they instinctively know who will or who won’t obey the laws, they know who they can provoke and who will just saw their heads off.
But then again, insects and animals also have automatic reactions.
This makes them very easy to intimidate for people who know how to manipulate psychological and physiological reactions in physical meetings. The Left, being an army of zombies, can be manipulated against a target of somebody else’s devising. The leaders merely have to be nullified. The necromancers, that is.
Y,
From my perspective, all I have to know is where they live. Houses frequently burn down.
parker is the only one here who is willing to put action to his words and convictions. Which is why we’re losing.
How long are we going to give the future away?
GB
The votes are in. It will be 5-4 in favor of SSM. King Tony Kennedy will “do it for the children” but he will dress it up with legal argle-bargle.
Check out the last 30 minutes of the Toobin-Boies interview. Should be on PBS online. Boies just dismissed man-woman marriage. No rational reason whatsoever. The entire course of human history and the core of civilization is just wrong. Leftists all adopt that line of attack.
Polygamy will be here in 5 years.
Mad Max is here now. I see it in Omaha. State of Nature. Rule of Law is out the window.
“DC from the beginning has been the enemy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
The problem with that proposition is that it implies that mankind is incapable of governing itself. While doing nothing to suggest how, in the modern world, a society can defend itself from external aggression.
Madison put his finger firmly upon the problem when he observed that, “The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always, the instruments of tyranny at home”.
Frog,
“parker is the only one here who is willing to put action to his words and convictions.”
Not so but our apparent unwillingness to engage in the ‘action’ of which you imply is actually the natural reluctance to precipitate another civil war.
Whomever throws the first blow loses the moral high ground and as much as anything else, the moral high ground will determine the winner because the LIVs will not support a tyranny of the Left that will of necessity oppress them as well. Nor will the US military support a physical tyranny.
To everything there is a season and the time for fighting has not yet come. Would that we could avoid brother against brother but the Left will have it no other way because for such as they, to rule is all.
“How long are we going to give the future away?”
Until enough LIVs awaken to the monster that, through their support, they have birthed.
DC is a problem but any capital or concentration of power would do the same. The sane or logical solution would be to move capitals, change the rules, and continually shift the goal posts around so that con men and women don’t adapt in time. Or at least, only the 1% of elite con men can adapt, but the rest won’t have time to get on the bandwagon of corruption. Cause they are too stupid to engineer it on their own, they have to wait for someone else to do it first.
By getting government too busy to do things cause they are busy moving 6 months out of the year, they have less time to “conduct business” which is another way of saying they have less time to sell favors and influence to their families.
The US military is being purged even now, to obey any and all orders from the Regime, current or future.
The LIVs will obey their Authorities, no matter what. As seen in Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, etc. No matter how much the system crushes them, they can always blame someone else. The whitey. The Man. The Republicans. The Other.
.
.
Dog bites man: NO film at 11…
.
.