Comments about ‘Utah workgroup considers Medicaid expansion’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 24 2013 6:16 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

The longer they take the more unnecessary suffering there will be. Is this delay really about being careful or is it more about political stonewalling? 45 other states have already made a decision, with most deciding that the benefits of Medicaid expansion easily outweigh any negative consequences. Is it about flexibility or is it about finding some kind of poison pill that will make it look like the state is doing something, but that will in the end become a justification for killing the expansion? This notion may seem cynical but Republican poison pill politics has become much more common in recent years. Just ask the Post Office.

DN Subscriber 2
SLC, UT

Don't get sucked in my the illusory lure of "FREE MONEY!" if we just shackle our future to the mandates of Obamacare. Remember, even Democrats are now admitting it is a train wreck, and the drastically higher costs than predicted, or were currently paid by consumers are just beginning to be felt.

Stay far, far away from this mess if we can!

financenco
Salt Lake City, UT

Don't do it. It will cost the state money. It will drain you. It is a poison. Join other states in encouraging congress to not fund this illegal law.

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

I find it interesting that three years out of four, republicans rail against Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and any other "entitlement programs" that taxpayers pay into and expect a return from. Then election year hits and they want to position themselves as staunch defenders of these very same programs they have vilified as if no one will remember the previous three years. The sad thing is that it works.
Republicans, be open and honest about your positions. You have opposed Medicare since Reagan railed against it in 1964. You have opposed Medicaid and Social Security since its inception. You opposed TARP, SNAP, and Affirmative Action from the beginning. Senator Mike Lee was right - stop hiding your positions and talk more openly and freely about what you believe. I'll be sitting over here with my coffee watching the show.

KJB1
Eugene, OR

President Obama could find the cure to lung cancer and Republicans would all start smoking just to spite him.

jean22
Bountiful, UT

Please, Governor Herbert! Accept the Medicaid Expansion!

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

We need to abandon medicaid, and all private insurance, for a single payer health care system.

JimInSLC
Salt Lake City, UT

"Utah receives 70 percent of the program's costs from Washington, D.C. The remaining 30 percent is picked up by state dollars"

Where does the state think that this "free" federal money is coming from. The money will come from Utah taxpayers, and taxpayers of every other state, in increased federal taxes. If Every state is being promised that 70 percent of their program will be picked by the federal government, it can only mean a tax increase nation-wide to pay for the program. Or maybe they'll just print more money to pay for it, further devaluing the dollar and passing the bill on to future generations.

Throw money at a problem and costs will only go up.

VST
Bountiful, UT

@FatherOfFour said, "You [Republicans] have opposed Medicaid and Social Security since its inception."

Not true Pops.

Social Security in 1935 had overwhelming Republican support (84% in the House, and 76% in the Senate).

Medicare in 1965, had bi-partisan Republican support, pretty much evenly split (51% in the House, and 43% in the Senate)

[Source: Social Security Administration, Legislative History]

Try to do better research next time before playing the "blame-game."

FatherOfFour
WEST VALLEY CITY, UT

@VST

"According to Reagan, Medicare would lead federal officials to dictate where physicians could practice medicine, and open the door to government control over where Americans were allowed to live. In fact, Reagan warned that if Medicare became law, there was a real possibility that the federal government would control where Americans go and what they do for a living. "

"1935: Almost all Republicans in Congress oppose the creation of Social Security.

1939: 75percent of Republicans in Senate try to kill legislation providing Social Security benefits to dependents and survivors as well as retired workers.

1950: 79 percent of House and 89 percent of Senate Republicans vote against disability insurance to defeat it.

1956: 86 percent of Republicans in Senate oppose disability insurance; program approved nonetheless.

1965: 93 percent of Republicans in House and 62 percent in Senate vote to kill Medicare."

rick122948
boise, id

The problem is that the healthcare, insurance, and pharmaceutical corporations have used their influence on policy makers for too long and the entire system is broken. Having uninsured people dependant on emergency care rather than preventive and office care and reasonable prescription costs costs us all double, triple or more because many can't afford to pay that emergency bill so it gets passed through to other sources of revenue. It would serve the health care and pharmaceutical industry right if the government just nationalized the whole system. Their bottom line mentality would go into seizures.

VST
Bountiful, UT

@FatherOfFour,

From the on-line website for the History of Legislation, Social Security Administration, the following information is provided:

The House vote authorizing Social Security on 19 Apr 1935 was:

81 Republicans voted for, 15 voted against, 6 did not vote or voted Present.
284 Democrats voted for, 20 voted against, 20 did not vote.

The Senate vote authorizing Social Security on 19 Jun 1935 was:

16 Republicans voted for, 5 voted against, 4 did not vote.
60 Democrats vote for; 1 voted against, 8 did not vote.

The House vote in 1965 authorizing Medicare was:

70 Republicans voted for, 68 voted against, 2 did not vote.
237 Democrats voter for, 48 voted against, 8 did not vote

The Senate vote in 1965 authorizing Medicare was:

13 Republicans voted for, 17 voted against, 2 did not vote.
57 Democrats voted for, 48 voted against, 4 did not vote.

You are entitled to you own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Go look it up yourself on the Social Security website – do a search under "legislative history."

VST
Bountiful, UT

Correction from previous post:

The Senate vote in 1965 authorizing Medicare was:

13 Republicans voted for, 17 voted against, 2 did not vote.
57 Democrats voted for, 7 voted against, 4 did not vote.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments