EDITORIAL: Red ink

When several Republican governors balked at accepting federal cash to expand Medicaid as part of Obamacare, Democrats ridiculed their budgetary concerns and even argued they were stupid for not accepting the “free” money.

Sen. Harry Reid even accused the governors of Alaska and Texas of hastening the deaths of children by balking at the push to increase enrollment in the program for poor and low-income Americans.

But as Obamacare crumbles, it turns out that concerns about long-term costs and Medicaid weren’t just the fantastical musings characteristic of an ideological shortcoming.

“The cost of expanding Medicaid under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul is rising faster than expected in many states, causing budget anxieties and political misgivings,” the Associated Press reported last week.

Under Obamacare, the federal government would subsidize the cost of new enrollees in return for states relaxing Medicaid eligibility standards. Washington would pick up the tab for five years, with the state eventually taking responsibility for 10 percent of the bill by 2020.

But while fewer low-income Americans now lack health insurance, the deal — as many predicted — now threatens to be a budget buster in some states.

“Far more people than projected are signing up under the new law … and their health care costs are running higher than anticipated, in part because [they] are apparently sicker than expected,” the wire service explained.

Nevada was one of 31 states to accept the federal money in return for setting Medicaid eligibility requirements well above the poverty line. The state now faces a $400 million budget shortfall, in part due to rising Medicaid expenses.

Rather than dangling more money in front of states, Congress should have freed them to set their own priorities and to craft their own strategies to improve care for low-income residents. Instead, those who warned that the Washington approach would open a gusher of red ink turned out to be right, after all. Go figure.