ObamaCare’s Medicaid Expansion Is Blowing Up

Welfare: During the debates on ObamaCare, Medicaid got little attention. That was a mistake, since enrollment and the cost of treating all those jumping onto the program is surging beyond expectations.

At first, ObamaCare tried to force states to expand eligibility for Medicaid by including childless adults and people with incomes 38% above the poverty line. In 2012, the Supreme Court blocked this attempt, making expansion optional for states.

Two dozen states immediately took the bait, lured by the promise the federal government would pay 100% of costs in the first three years and 90% for the newly eligible on into the future. Several more have joined since.

An analysis by the Associated Press finds that this was short-sighted folly. At least 14 of these states have seen enrollment surge unexpectedly, forcing at least half to increase their cost estimates. And we’re not talking about a few percentage points.

• In Kentucky, more than twice as many signed up for Medicaid than the state had projected. That’s forced Kentucky to more than double its projected Medicaid costs for 2017.

• In California, almost 2.3 million enrolled — nearly triple what the state planned on. Today, 1 in 3 Californians are on Medicaid.

• In Ohio, Medicaid costs more than doubled after Republican Gov. John Kasich decided to expand the program, and Michigan’s shot up 50%, the AP reports.

Overall, Medicaid rolls climbed a stunning 28% in these expansion states.

At the same time, these new enrollees are costing far more to treat than expected.

Instead of costing slightly less than those currently on the program, new enrollees’ health costs were 19% higher, a government report found .

For the left, none of this really matters, since the goal all along has been to get as many people dependent on government for health care as possible. Which is why the Obama administration is busy putting increasing pressure on the holdout states to get in line.

For those who thought expanding Medicaid would save states money, these developments should be deeply troubling.

Medicaid is already the single biggest program on state budgets, and its explosive growth has started to crowd out basic needs like education. This will only get worse as the full effects of ObamaCare’s Medicaid plan emerge.

Incredibly, despite these warning signs, even some Republicans who until now had resisted Medicaid’s expansion are going wobbly.

In April, Montana’s Republican-controlled legislature approved Medicaid expansion. They’re waiting on the feds to approve some waivers to the program before it can take effect.

Utah is looking for a way to do the same.

To some degree, you can excuse those Republicans who decided to boost their Medicaid rolls for not knowing exactly what they were getting themselves into. But any governor who does so now, in the face of this hard evidence, is being irresponsible.

They’re also taking the nation a big step closer to the left’s ultimate goal of a single-payer system.

Source: Investor’s Business Daily:

Obama’s Disastrous Iran Deal by Richard A. Epstein

In his famous 1897 essay, “The Path of the Law,” Oliver Wendell Holmes said that to understand the law, it would be necessary to adopt the perspective of the famous “bad man,” the one “who cares only for the material consequences” of his actions, but “does not care two straws for the axioms or deductions” of natural law. Our bad man just wants “to know what the Massachusetts or English courts are likely to do in fact.”

Today, Holmes’s quintessential bad man is Iran, as it only cares about what happens if it gets caught,—caught, in this case, developing nuclear weapons. With most contracts, people work overtime to avoid that problem by choosing the right business partners. But there is no such luxury in international affairs.

Last week, Iran and the six world powers—the United States, China, Russia, Great Britain, France, and Germany—plus the European Union signed a nuclear deal called the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.” Any examination of this deal has to start with the ugly but accurate assumption that Iran will, at every opportunity, act in bad faith.

The agreement starts off on a grand note: “The goal for these negotiations is to reach a mutually-agreed long-term comprehensive solution that would ensure Iranˈs nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons.” But it is straight downhill from there.

The first problem with the deal is that it gives Iran an undeserved respectability that comes simply from being allowed to sign a significant international agreement.

Worse still, China and Russia should not be understood as adverse to Iran, their present and future ally. They are better understood as a Fifth Column against the West, and Iran’s many other foes, whose role in the negotiations is akin to the role that Vladimir Putin played in the embarrassing negotiations over chemical weapons in Syria that all but destroyed Obama’s credibility in foreign policy. Putin will be happy to take any excess uranium ore off the hands of the Iranians. But at the most opportune time, he might be prepared to return it to Iran if doing so would benefit Russia. The Chinese, for their part, also sense weakness in the United States and the West, as they build up illegal islands in the South China Sea subject to our diplomatic objections that accomplish nothing.

The remaining parties are our nominal allies who must believe that this nuclear deal represents a retreat from the basic proposition of Pax Americana—the guarantee that the U.S. will provide meaningful guarantees for the security of its allies. Our allies may well become less hostile to Russia and China precisely because they cannot count on U.S. leadership in tough times. The situation is starker still for the Israelis, who fear that the deal will embolden the Iranians to create more mischief in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Saudis are probably next in line in this belief. And both are surely right.

Iran’s promises count for nothing. Iran is quite happy to fund Bashar al-Assad in Syria, to back Hamas, and to launch terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East. It is eager to confront its Sunni rivals, most notably Saudi Arabia, by supporting their enemies. It is eager to annihilate Israel. Indeed now that the agreement seems in place, the Ayatollah says flat out that deal or no deal, “we will never stop supporting our friends in the region and the people of Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon.”

Why then would anyone be surprised that Iran would be willing to make high-sounding promises that it has every intention to quickly break? Does anyone really agree with the President’s rosy view that Iran will reciprocate our respect with its respect? Putting our best foot forward makes sense with ordinary business deals where reputations count. It makes no sense when dealing with a Holmesian bad man who has no need or intention of reciprocating good will with good will.

Read more @ Hoover Institute

Man who exposed Planned Parenthood speaks out

Quote of the Day 07/24/15

“Every Communist must grasp the truth, ‘Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.’ Our principle is that the [Communist] Party commands the gun and the gun will never be allowed to command the Party.” — Mao Tse-tung Premier of China (1893 – 1976)

One by Land and Two by Sea: The Feds are coming by the Bear

The famous ride of Paul Revere to warn the citizens of Lexington and Concord that the British are coming and this was the beginning of the American Revolution that created a “Nation of Free People.” This happened happened on the night of April 18, 1775. America declared their Independence from British Rule on July 4th 1776 and finally in 1787 the Founding Fathers ratified the Constitution and the Republic was formed in Philadelphia.

When a lady asked Ben Franklin as he left Constitutional Hall…”What form of government do we have?” He replied: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Although, We the People have managed to keep it for 228 years, the question of keeping it becomes more relevant every day as all the people’s Rights as prescribed in the Constitution are dwindling slowly away.

“How bad do things have to get before you do something? Do they have to take away all your property? Do they have to license every activity that you want to engage in? Do they have to start throwing you on cattle cars before you say “now wait a minute, I don’t think this is a good idea.” How long is it going to be before you finally resist and say “No, I will not comply. Period!” Ask yourself now because sooner or later you are going to come to that line, and when they cross it, you’re going to say well now cross this line; ok now cross that line; ok now cross this line. Pretty soon you’re in a corner. Sooner or later you’ve got to stand your ground whether anybody else does or not. That is what liberty is all about.”
Michael Badnarik

A Gallup poll showed Majorities in U.S. View Gov’t as Too Intrusive and Powerful.

Record- or near-record-high percentages of Americans are critical of the size and scope of government, as measured by four Gallup trend questions updated in September. This sentiment stretches to 59% of Americans now believing the federal government has too much power, up eight percentage points from a year ago.