The debate about whether or not states should accept ObamaCare’s expansion of Medicaid to a new class of able-bodied adults rages on. More than a dozen states have continued to hold the line against it, instead protecting their Medicaid program for the truly needy. Due to massive enrollment and cost overruns, many current expansion states have also been pushing forward with policies to rein in expansion, such as commonsense work requirements and enrollment freezes.
But across the map, in these conversations about rejecting or reducing expansion’s disastrous impact, welfare expansion proponents continue to misrepresent how the program is funded in a concerted effort to expand ObamaCare.
Namely, proponents assert that expansion is good for their state because it “brings back” money their taxpayers have sent to Washington D.C., implying that they have a right to it. They also argue that, if they reject or roll back expansion, they will be sending “their money” to other states instead. They argue states can do nothing to reduce the national debt. And finally, they lead policymakers to believe that expansion is fully funded by the federal government.
But in reality, all of these arguments grossly misrepresent how ObamaCare’s expansion is actually funded and the threat it poses to state budgets.