- Elton John blasts Russia’s anti-gay laws during Moscow concert
- U.N.: Afghanistan slow to enforce law protecting women
- Heart cancels SeaWorld concert after ‘Blackfish’ documentary
- South Carolina sheriff refuses to lower American flag for Nelson Mandela
- South Africans hold day of prayer for Nelson Mandela
- Mandela not on life support in final hours, friend says
- Ukraine protesters topple, decapitate Lenin statue in Kiev
- Kim Jong-un’s uncle removed from North Korean state documentary
- Thailand crisis deepens as opposition quits Parliament
- Campbell Soup apologizes for SpaghettiOs’ Pearl Harbor tweet
Ruling could hike CBO’s health law cost estimate
The next big shoe to drop in the health care debate after last week’s Supreme Court ruling is an updated cost estimate from Congress‘ chief scorekeepers, which could tip the massive program into the red.
While the court upheld most of the health law, it made one key change that could mean fewer people take part in Medicaid and instead end up in heavily subsidized health exchanges — a move that could make the law more expensive for the federal government.
“People haven’t fully internalized how much of a monkey wrench this court ruling has thrown into the finances of the legislation,” said Chuck Blahous, a research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center and a public trustee for Social Security and Medicare.
When President Obama signed the law, the Congressional Budget Office — the scorekeeper for all legislation — said it actually would cut the deficit, thanks to hundreds of billions of dollars in tax increases and spending cuts elsewhere, which combined to more than balance out the nearly $900 billion in new health care spending.
In a brief statement last week, CBO said it’ll work up a new estimate based on the law as it stands now.
Democrats hope the latest figures will still show a lower deficit. But Republicans are salivating, saying the re-estimate could show spending now exceeds the new taxes and spending cuts.
It all hinges on how many states decide not to expand their Medicaid programs, as the law requires.
As written, the law says states must expand Medicaid eligibility to include adults up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or else face the loss of all federal Medicaid money, even for current beneficiaries.
The Medicaid expansion is intended to cover Americans who aren’t poor enough to qualify for traditional Medicaid but not wealthy enough to qualify for federal subsidies to buy coverage on insurance exchanges.
At least 15 Republican-led states have expressed reluctance to expand Medicaid, with some of those states already flatly ruling it out.
In states that opt out, the federal government must instead offer subsidies to help those caught in the middle to join health exchanges.
Opponents of the law say that’s likely to steepen its price tag, potentially reversing the CBO’s original projection that it would whittle the deficit down $132 billion by 2019.
“It’s going to go up, that seems unmistakable,” said Doug Holtz-Eakin, former CBO director under President George W. Bush.
But supporters of the law say the exchange subsidies will cost less to the federal government than it would have paid under Medicaid.
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
- A familiar fading feeling for McMahon in Connecticut
- Romney’s bid to undo health law faces hurdles
- Hill GOP presses Medicare probe
- Romney, Obama advisors butt heads over binders, Big Bird and “Romnesia”
- Outsiders abide by rules in Brown-Warren race
Latest Blog Entries
By Brahma Chellaney
- Obama: Hole U.S. 'digging out of' requires billions more in unemployment benefits
- Bill OReilly reminds: Nelson Mandela was a communist
- Sen. Rand Paul pushes 'economic freedom zones' for Detroit
- Redskins' season hits bottom with Chiefs blowout
- Spike in battlefield deaths linked to restrictive rules of engagement
- FENNO: Mike Shanahan's empty words no salve to free-falling Redskins
- U.S. debt jumps a record $328 billion tops $17 trillion for first time
- Sen. Rand Paul: 'I am seriously thinking about' running for president in 2016
- Legalizing illegal immigrants is the solution to Obamacare: Democrat
- Obamas call to close Vatican embassy is 'slap in the face' to Roman Catholics
Independent voices from the The Washington Times Communities
Al Maurer provides a common sense, conservatarian, Constitutional conservative perspective from the battleground state of Colorado
Film Reviews and Articles by Kevin Williams
"Critical thinking is thinking about your thinking while you're thinking in order to make your thinking better." - Dr. Richard Paul
Go beyond tourism's "top 10" bus tour destinations with Susan McKee as she explores the varied history, culture, food, and gardens, of the world.
Let it snow
White House pets gone wild!