Dr. Udall,you say we should acquiesce just to get the free federal
money.the money is not free. SOMEBODY has to pay for it.and it does not meet your definition of "free" for all that long.
eventually the feds withdraw their funding and we are left holding the bag.Accepting this money is akin to accepting the first few "free"
hits from the drug dealer; he gives them away at first because he knows once you
are hooked, he can make a ton of money off of you later.The State of
Utah cannot afford to get addicted to this misguided and expensive program.
Just say NO!!!! to Obamacare.
Thank you, Dr. Udall, for a sensible, well-written article.It
appears that in other states the ideologues have also made a big hubbub, but the
governors are having the common sense to just say yes to these federal funds
that greatly benefit their residents.
At some point I think the good people in this state who are followers of Jesus
need to decide which is more important: taking care of the less fortunate and
getting them the healthcare they need, or fighting the federal government.The noble idea of having private charity pay for the less fortunate has
been given the longest audition in the history of medical care, and it has
failed.In much the same way that Paul Ryan suggests a voucher system
for Social Security and Medicare, maybe we need to provide the defense
department with a voucher that says they can spend twice as much money on
defense as the next most powerful nation, but no more.Twice as much
as the next nation seems like a pretty good deal to me.
Medicaid expansion isn't free. According to the Kaiser foundation it will
cost Utah $263 million in the first ten years alone.
Cameron:It's supposed to cost $500-$600 Million to move the
prison, which I think most people who've studied it suggest will be a net
loss, which is why Governor Huntsman's committee decided it was a bad idea.
Yet, the lets-move-the-prison idea is back with us again, with no
mention of the previous feasibility study, and some legislators are bound to
make a lot of money should the move occur.But it would cost $263
Million over ten years to expand Medicaid.Which of these two ideas
is more sound from a moral standpoint?
"the money is not free. SOMEBODY has to pay for it.""Medicaid
expansion isn't free."You are thinking of it in the wrong
terms.Medical treatment for these patients is not free. Their bill
would either be paid by Medicaid, or through the expensive traditional method of
hospitals writing off the debt through tax credits. Tax credits mean lost
revenue for the government. The government would prefer to cover the bills of
these patients through the cheapest way possible, and that turns out to be
The author of the letter cannot fathom why Utah would consider rejecting free
money to expand Medicaid, and can only chalk it up to extremist ideologues
refusing to see how simple it is. What the author clearly does not know is that
expansion comes with a definite price. Which is surprising to most people
because expansion advocates have been touting it as free money for a couple of
years now.So no, it's not ideology that makes the decision
making process a methodical one. It's math.Expansion means
raising taxes or cutting other programs. Even *after* accounting for cost
savings, expanding Medicaid will cost the state $263 million over ten years. And
of course keep rising after that. This is an extremely important, long-term
budget decision that just cannot be summed up with the letter author's,
"it's free money, of course we should take it."
Lost in DC. How could a person be so "lost"? You think that there is
no cost if we don't expand medicare coverage? Think again.