Taxpayers are going to be on the hook for healthcare for about 150,000 Washington residents.

If you listen to media reports, Washington is being touted as a "role model" for the Obamacare rollout.   The Washington Healthcare Exchange is being saluted for being so efficient, and nationally high numbers of shoppers.

But according to the actual figures from the healthcare exchange itself, by way of the Washington Policy Center,   only 11% of the applicants have signed up on what is called the private side.   This is where people with insurance they pay premiums and deductibles for (or don't have it) shop and buy the plans.   That leaves 89% of the applicants to be paid for by taxpayers.  Obamacare, as we have reported, only works, or has the costs offset, by millions of people who enroll and pay through the private side - that offsets the largely free Medicaid side.

Dr. Roger Stark, MD, who is a Health Care Policy Analyst for the policy center,  says the way the Affordable Care Act is written, eventually at least 90% of the cost of Medicaid will be paid for by federal taxpayers.   They are the same as state taxpayers,  and it is estimated Obamacare's Medicaid could cost between $17-22 billion dollars over the next ten years, depending upon enrollment.  That's not a national figure, that's what YOU and the rest of us state residents will be on the hook for.

Also, as of this writing, Dr. Stark says some 290,000 Washington residents have received cancellation notices from their insurance companies because their existing policies didn't fit the ACA criteria.   And, two major hospitals in our state, Swedish and Childrens Hospital (who do invaluable work for patients from all over the state), were LEFT OUT of the ACA.   They were not included in the ACA exchange programs.

Imagine if you had a child who's only hope for treatment, or best chance, came from programs offered at these centers, only to find your Obamacare policy won't allow you to utilize them?

Is Obamacare really about getting people the care they need, or is it -as many critics say - just a thinly veiled attempt at redistribution of wealth and making people dependent upon the government?  Dr. Stark says this in his article:

"The real problem is that having Medicaid health insurance is not better than being uninsured. A recent study from Oregon, reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, confirmed that in a randomized, controlled study, Medicaid patients had no better health outcomes, nor did they live longer than a similar group of people without health insurance. " (Bold lettering added for emphasis).