Exacerbating Medicaid's failure
Up is down.
Black is white.
Conservatism is “radical.”
Liberalism is “the normal state of things.”
Religious principles and convictions? Why, those are nothing more than “bigotry.”
Race-neutral policies? “Racism,” obviously.
The immutable laws of economics? Mutable and relative; an archaic construct.
The theft that is wealth-transference? “Fairness” in the eyes of the liberals who now eschew the moniker for its negative connotations in favor of “progressives,” which more accurately tags them for the socialists they are.
This is the state of contemporary America, the product of declining intellectual wherewithal fueled by the educratic establishment's failure to inculcate critical thinking skills as it teaches revisionist history.
This sad state of affairs is on no worse display than in the current debate over ObamaCare.
It's nothing more than a government takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, the result of which was predictable and now is being proven as an unmitigated failure. Think not only of the basic perversion of the market (and, for the record, a government-mandated market hardly is the free marketplace) or of the technical glitches in the ObamaCare website, but of the major unintended consequence of that failure, one of which is more and more people signing up for Medicaid.
“Medicaid signups an early ObamaCare bright spot,” went the headline on a CBS News dispatch. The story touts how 444,000 people have signed up for the means-tested, subsidized health insurance program designed to aid the poor but, these days, available even to families of decidedly middle-class incomes. And that's thought be a fraction of the real number, notes the story, framing the development as nothing short of a grand success story.
Denizens of the far left, such as Brad Woodhouse, former communications director of the Democratic National Committee, now president of Americans United for Change, seize on the number as being a catalyst for everything from saving state budgets and being a wonderful jobs generator, to saving struggling hospitals (perennial taxpayer teat suckers).
Would that it could. But it won't. Because it can't. Because Medicaid, already a ticking time bomb, now surely is ever closer to detonation.
“Medicaid needs reform, not expansion,” reminded Heritage Foundation health policy scholar Nina Owcharenko in a March white paper. Not only will expansion consume an ever larger portion of state and federal budgets, “Research shows a long history of Medicaid enrollees having worse access and outcomes than privately insured individuals,” she adds.
Medicaid “is already struggling to provide care to its core obligations — a diverse group of low-income children, disabled, pregnant women and seniors,” writes Ms. Owcharenko. “Adding more people further exacerbates Medicaid's underlying problems.”
And up is down, black is white and, “Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.”
Colin McNickle is Trib Total Media's director of editorial pages (412-320-7836 or firstname.lastname@example.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Distracted Steelers show nothing in loss to Eagles
- NFL could delay punishment
- New Kensington slaying victims identified
- Rossi: Time with Penguins taught Bylsma importance of stability
- Steelers notebook: Keisel dresses, but doesn’t play
- LaBar: Hulk Hogan wants to fight Brock Lesnar?
- Youngwood shelter removes 44 dogs, 9 cats from shuttered Fayette SPCA
- Will soft foes mean fast start to the season for Pitt football team?
- North Versailles commissioners approve new fire policy
- Kiss’ makeup has changed, but their impact remains strong
- Salem teen surprised with Westmoreland Fair Queen win