Insurance for long term care for the elderly may be a great idea -- but unless you looove the efficiency of the immigration service or find the post office a model of cost-effectiveness, there's no reason on earth anyone should want the federal government in charge of this.
(2) States are finding some ugly "surprises." Several days late and many dollars short, The NY Times informs us that states will be heavily burdened by all the new regulations. Examples listed in the piece include Arizona, Louisiana and California:
Arizona lawmakers must now find a way to maintain insurance coverage for 350,000 children and adults that they slashed just last week to help close a $2.6 billion budget deficit.
Louisiana officials say a reduction in federal money to hospitals that treat the uninsured under the bill could be a death knell for their state-run charity hospital system.
In California, policymakers estimate they will have to come up with an additional $500 million a year to make necessary increases in payments to Medicaid providers.In fact, speaking yesterday to Hugh Hewitt, Meg Whitman estimated that the new legislation would add $3 billion in new obligations to California's budget -- on top of the $20 billion deficit that already exists.
The takeaway message? Every single legislator from an affected state who voted for ObamaCare needs to be held accountable in November. Forget the pleas about ignorance or unintended consequences. There is no excuse for ignorance about the legislation's contents, given that Democrats were willing to support a sweeping bill deliberately witheld to avoid scrutiny and rushed through to avoid dissent. And there are no excuses for unintended consequences, because the bill's opponents have alerted legislators to them repeatedly.