Risky Business
The New York Times reports that a number of states are readying new high-risk health insurance pools called for by the PPACA. These high risk pools are intended to serve those who may have difficulty getting insurance because of preexisting conditions or other risk factors. According to the article, "Democrats describe the program as a bridge to 2014, when insurers will be required to accept all applicants."
But if this is a bridge, it's a pretty rickety one. The pools were stuffed into the health care bill in part to give Democrats an early deliverable. As the Times' report notes, the Obama administration hopes that the pools will produce political benefits "for Democrats running in midterm elections this fall." But most of the rewards in politics come from appearing to do something helpful while misleading voters about how much it's going to cost—which may explain why the bill's authors opted to hide the program's true cost by low-balling the funding.
Estimates suggest that as many as 7 million people could qualify for these new pools, but the law only provides enough funding to cover between 200,000 and 400,000 of them. Richard Foster, Medicare's chief actuary, predicts that the $5 billion allotted to fund these pools will run out by 2012, and perhaps even by 2011. And when the money runs out, one of two things will happen: Either the states that decided to run these programs will be stuck with the tab, or the federal government will step in with more funding. No matter what though, it's going to cost more than projected, more than budgeted, and, given our ongoing deficit difficulties, probably more than either Washington or any of state capitol can actually afford.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Suerman, are you really such a ratfucker? What do nyou really think?
Hey, everyone... the liar is back! How ya been, Max? Ever get that hobo cock taste out of your mouth?
IOW, business as usual.
Yes, imagine our shock at a federal program going billions of dollars over budget.
I'm shock that so far it's only billions.
Thanks, Astrid, that's funny, really funny! 🙂
I think some people just get mad when reality is shown to them...disrupts their fantastical world-view.
You guys all forget that he inherited this situation. It's not O's fault that it might go over-budget.
pandora jewelry blog Symbol Of Fashion pandora are prominent oecumenical for its stylish and formal baubles goodnesses.
Manner is pandora jewelry blog which bears brandished inward the twentieth 100 and it has caused belong dwell balls around it. Everyone inch the world appears to follow popular with in the most only fashion and over here pandora jewelry blog bands assistants you core that as bejewels constitutes unmatched of the core comes to close to chassis.pandora jewelry blog costs Earth deviated salient now a domiciliating because it caters uncommon conceptions of earrings to their customers. They make that kind of earrings which cost not usable earlier. These constitutes the causa pandora jewelry blog charms gained agile achiever and accepted no competitor in the betimes time of its star. pandora jewelry blog companion directly comprises voguish amid everyone.
the step of life is so quaick FETUYUBDG