Medicaid expansion: Corbett's push-back
Published: Friday, May 24, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
Always a bad idea, Pennsylvania accepting Obama-Care's expansion of Medicaid looks even worse — and up to $515 million in financial benefits projected by the state's Independent Fiscal Office look even more dubious — in the light shed by Gov. Tom Corbett's acting secretary of Public Welfare.
In a letter to the fiscal office, Bev Mackereth contends:
• it underestimated implementation costs by $59 million
• overestimated savings from shifting General Assistance recipients to Medicaid by $122 million
• and counts on $78 million in new revenue from a gross receipts tax on hospitals that might not continue under Medicaid expansion.
Keep in mind that hospitals' pro-ObamaCare, pro-Medicaid-expansion lobbying is self-serving pursuit of greater hospital subsidies, as Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute's director of health policy studies, points out. And that Medicaid expansion would merely shift taxpayers' burden from the state level to the federal level, rely on Washington keeping its promise to cover “100 percent” of costs for adding uninsured people to Medicaid until 2016, cause more doctors to reject Medicaid patients, increase red tape, destroy private insurance and, ultimately, raise taxes.
The Pennsylvania Independent calls Ms. Mackereth's letter the Corbett administration's first public push-back “against claims the expansion would benefit the state financially.” We call it a heartening sign that Gov. Corbett will spare Pennsylvania the financial pain sure to result from Medicaid expansion.
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.
- Nelson Mandela: The real legacy
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- PSERS time bomb: Tick, tick, tick, tick ...
- ‘Racism’? No
- Anti-fracking scandal: More junk ‘science’
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday Takes
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- The Thursday wrap