Seeking Alpha

Former Obama OMB director Peter Orszag says, despite several states already taking their cue...

Former Obama OMB director Peter Orszag says, despite several states already taking their cue from the Supreme Court’s health care decision and opting out of offering additional Medicaid coverage, most will continue to do so because of the attractive subsidy. States are already offering more coverage with a federal government reimbursement rate below 60%, and when it goes to 90% the temptation will just be too hard to resist.
Comments (20)
  • The Socialists are trying to get the States “hooked” on DC money, just like that stupid train subsidy FL turned down and CA accepted. CA is going to go into debt billions for accepting.


    Big Govt wants to control your life, just ask a NYC residence who wants to buy a soda at a movie.
    2 Jul 2012, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • "attractive subsidy" translate bribe with ben dollars; what a joke;
    CA is a third world country obsessed with promoting homosexuality and lawlessness. it has no clue on the economy and fiscal responsibility
    2 Jul 2012, 08:03 PM Reply Like
  • Just to throw some numbers out:


    1) California has the 9th largest economy in the world with a GDP @ around $2 trillion. Somewhere between Italy and India.


    2) If one were to scale California's GDP to the size of the US GDP, the recent $16 billion shortfall would be equivalent to a national government budget shortfall of around $120 billion.


    3) $2.7 billion dollars for a high speed rail project is peanuts for an infrastructure project for the 9th largest economy in the world.


    4) On top of this California paid $313 billion dollars in federal taxes in 2010.


    For Montana


    1) MT has a GDP of around $37.2 billion which puts it somewhere around the GDP's of Ghana and Libya.


    In terms of the ACA, it's passage is actually good for business because it will enhance labor mobility and removes any consideration of someone's health insurance status in layoff's.
    2 Jul 2012, 11:04 PM Reply Like
  • i agree with this. i also think the..."target" as it were is Medicare...Part B.
    2 Jul 2012, 08:23 PM Reply Like
  • the obama admin can run radio commercials like they do for food stamps - get them why they r hot - subsidies - take "free" money
    2 Jul 2012, 08:48 PM Reply Like
  • All aboard! Prices going up.
    2 Jul 2012, 09:09 PM Reply Like
  • Except for those who will pay nothing.
    Those already paying the most will soon pay double in order to 'adopt' them.
    2 Jul 2012, 10:32 PM Reply Like
  • Regardless what you traditionalists cling to so you can sleep at night - everyone on all sides can agree that the healthcare system we have at this very moment is beyond broke. I don't agree with everything in Obama's solution, but what I do respect is that he's trying to do something about it. If you can fathom how big of an overhaul this is, just getting to this stage is indeed commendable taking into account how difficult it is to get something going in Congress past the suggestion box.


    There's no excuse for our system forcing insert-color-here-collar Americans to go into 6 figure debt because of pre-existing conditions black listing them from any kind of coverage.


    Take off you get-rich-or-die-trying sunglasses and take a moment to think about the people who need this.


    OMG - It's the socialist agenda! Run for the hills, the Muslim president is trying to force the country into becoming an unconstitutional dictatorship! Chicken Little was right - this is the beginning of the end thanks to Obamacare!


    Get your collective heads out of Hannity's ass and start thinking for yourself.
    2 Jul 2012, 10:59 PM Reply Like
  • I always say " be care a Government large enough to give you everything you want , is also lage enough to take it ALL away "
    2 Jul 2012, 11:04 PM Reply Like
  • The biggest moves that the Obama administration have done with respect to insurance companies revolve around reducing opportunities for insurance companies to profit from procedure rejection or delay.


    If you are in need of expensive surgery to save your life, it is cheaper for insurance companies to delay authorization and let you die than to pay. What new legislation has done is to reduce the profitability of this practice by mandating payout ratios and being more specific on the roles of insurance companies.
    3 Jul 2012, 10:52 AM Reply Like
  • Soon it will be government panels doing the denying rather than the insurance companies.
    3 Jul 2012, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • GOVT created the health insurance Monopolies (they are exempt from anti-trust laws & you can’t buy across state lines), now Govt wants to control the health care industry fully even though there is over $100B in Medicare waste and fraud a Year.


    Break up the health insurance monopolies to create competition, repeal Obamadeath that does Nothing to control costs, reduce doctor liability or put risk where it belongs (obese, smoking, alcoholic, twinkie eaters WON’T pay more than someone who takes care of themselves). Under Obamadeath, everyone pays the same, regardless. SOCIALISM at its finest.
    3 Jul 2012, 02:58 PM Reply Like
  • Please cite your source for 100B in Medicare waste and fraud. I highly doubt that there is that much fraud in the system.


    There HAS to be some government regulation in health care, or else doctors, insurance companies, or anyone could get ransom prices from patients in need of care. Do you want a system where prices are completely flexible and contingent on how much you need a procedure?
    5 Jul 2012, 10:05 AM Reply Like
  • And if you didn't notice, Obamacare allows for buying insurance policies over state lines.


    And from my own personal situation...I was sent to the emergency room due to an injury at work and laid off afterwards. Because of my trip to the emergency room, I was denied access to non-COBRA plans. I am a healthy non-smoker but I was still incapable of qualifying for insurance.
    5 Jul 2012, 10:09 AM Reply Like
  • The Govt Lies to protect itself:
    PolitiFacts 8/09: “On May 6, 2009, Daniel Levinson, the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services, testified before the Senate Special Committee on Aging that "it is not possible to measure precisely the extent of fraud in Medicare and Medicaid." As a result, estimates of fraud in the system vary — widely.”
    “Levinson said that the NHCAA — whose members include private insurance companies and government agencies — estimated that "at least 3 percent — or more than $60 billion each year — is lost to fraud." (In 2009)
    “…NHCAA for more background on that figure, which is, to be exact, $68 billion.” (In 2009)
    “Coburn's dollar figure — $80 billion in fraud — would be no more accurate if the NHCAA is right.” (In 2009)


    LA Times 5/12: “Although there is broad agreement that fraud is widespread in Medicare and Medicaid, estimates of the scope of the program vary from $20 billion a year to $100 billion. Total spending on Medicare and Medicaid is expected to reach about $1 trillion this year.”


    ABC News 2/11: Medicare Fraud Costs U.S. $90B a Year


    CNBC 4/12: “It’s not enough. We can’t continue to have $100 billion worth of fraud in federal government health-care programs,” Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) told CNBC.”
    11 Jul 2012, 09:50 AM Reply Like
    ...Conservative estimates put health care fraud in the U.S. at $80 billion each year – some say the real number is closer to $160 billion. That’s U.S. taxpayer money going into the hands of criminals instead of care.


    Award-winning Senior Correspondent Scott Cohn and the CNBC Investigations Inc. team spent six months on the front lines with a joint strike force taking down alleged health fraudsters and criminal rings accused of bilking Medicare and Medicaid out of millions. The strike force—one of nine across the country—is at the heart of a two-year federal crackdown on fraud, and “Health Care Hustle” examines whether it is working.
    17 Jul 2012, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • You mean "death panels"?


    Do you actually think that they'd be LESS generous than insurance companies?
    3 Jul 2012, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • Yes, because there will be no legal challenges to their denial of care.
    3 Jul 2012, 05:11 PM Reply Like
  • You sorely overestimate the effectiveness of our legal system. It takes years to get to court and, if the suit was over a critical procedure, it will be the survivors that foot the bill, after paying the medical bills themselves, to try to bring the case to court.
    5 Jul 2012, 10:00 AM Reply Like
  • Not the point, you Cannot sue the Overlords (Govt) if they deny you care, period.
    11 Jul 2012, 09:56 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)