Utah Democrats offer full Medicaid expansion bill


Return To Article
  • CBAX Provo, UT
    March 10, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    YES! The Democrats will save us! The government will take care of us! Those evil republicans are trying to hurt poor people because they hate poor people!

    Okay. YOU, yes YOU... go depend on the government or be selfish enough to let the poor do so. Both of you will be sorely disappointed sooner or later.

    Unfortunately in this world, there will always be inequality. Money is only here for some people to have more of it than others. Attempts to make everyone equal or even support everyone even in some capacity are probably doomed to failure. Human nature will manifest itself in any of the above mentioned situations.

    Please, stop playing the blame game and start being more pragmatic, first with yourself then those you can influence. The system isn't ideal and not everyone out there really cares about people. I know, it's no fun. Start enabling people instead of encouraging terrible government programs.

  • scrappy do DRAPER, UT
    March 10, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    the people need to support the Dems on this one, it would also be nice for folks to take off the blinders and vote for some moderate, intelligent Democrats to balance the whack job right that appears to be taking over the Republican party.. Idiocracy is closer than you think my friends

  • Utefan60 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 7, 2014 12:52 p.m.

    It is a sad commentary that people in need are being refused health care. Care that is readily available with funds that we as taxpayers have already paid. The argument that funds will run out is not correct. Lets take the money offered and get our citizens the care they need. I am so thankful that the Democrats have done this bill. It won't pass, but it will show how our Republican State will turn against their own citizens. Again as has been said, Lockhart, Herbert and others are and will continue to get subsidized taxpayer healthcare....so what does it matter to the working poor? Shame on our legislators....

  • Sego Lilly Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2014 9:46 p.m.

    @WilliamLee a lot of families are in the same boat. For many it will be a case of not being able to get the medications they need. Call medicaid and ask how many family members are they counting. It could be that they are using both incomes for one person and even though you're a two person household they are counting you as a one person family household. This is so wrong on so many levels.

  • StaciLynn Richfield, UT
    March 6, 2014 9:30 p.m.

    Before we decide our health care prior to the ACA was so awful realize that many come here from other countries to have medical procedures done. I grew up in CA with a friend whose mother grew up in Ireland & father grew up in Canada. My friends aunts & uncles would come for a month stay & have medical procedures done while in the states because they were on a 2-5 year waiting list in their home country to have the same procedures done there. They also would come to the states because they could choose their doctor & get a better doctor than the ones they could see at home.

    This is not an isolated case, I had an employee when I lived in CA whose wife's grandparents came to stay from Canada to have a surgery done, it was in the 1990's so I don't remember the exact surgery, it did have to do with the grandfather's heart. He could come here to have the surgery done or he could wait for at least 2 years with limited activity while he was on a list to have the surgery done.

    See next post, over 200 words I guess...

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    March 6, 2014 5:17 p.m.

    To "marxist" what good does it do to start a business if you can't afford the premiums? Did you know that on average the cost of insurance went UP by 32%? How can you persue your dream of self employment if your monthly premiums go from $1000 to $1320 per month?

    To be self employed and to maintain the same lifestyle, you now have to work even harder or longer.

    All that the ACA does is encourage sloth and a lack of ambition. Why work harder when the government will subsidize your insurance? Why work when you are given food, housing, insurance, cell phones, and internet access?

    To "GaryO" and what guarantees that level of funding? Do we trust the same politicians that told us that the ACA was going to lower premiums by $2500 per year? Do we trust the same politicians that sold us so many lies over the year?

  • arand Huntsville, u
    March 6, 2014 4:54 p.m.

    Hey Cowboy Joe, the people of UT probably help more poor people than all the governments in all the other States combined. I'm not even LDS, but I do see the good work they do. My wife and I moved here from CA just a few years ago and are both on SS only and I just had a major back injury. Our drive has been kept clean of snow all winter and food arrives at our door,so often we had to tell them to slow down.
    We hardly knew our neighbors in CA.

    Thank you UT

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2014 4:08 p.m.

    Those of you who oppose the ACA, please consider the following. In the job deprived "recovery" we are going through, there is a need for people to attempt self-employment. Individual enterprise - that is the dream of many! But such is impossible if one faces being wiped out by medical expenses. The full ACA could free many, not most, but many to pursue the dream of self-employment. I'm old now, but were I young I would pull for the full ACA for this reason.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    March 6, 2014 3:33 p.m.

    RedshirtMIT - The Federal Government will pick up 90% of the tab on a permanent basis.

    According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, "CBO estimates show that the federal government will bear nearly 93 percent of the costs of the Medicaid expansion over its first nine years (2014-2022). The federal government will pick up 100 percent of the cost of covering people made newly eligible for Medicaid for the first three years (2014-2016) and no less than 90 percent on a permanent basis." - Look it up.

    If the State of Utah can't organize itself well enough to pick up only 10% of the tab by 2022, it would be embarrassing to be a Utahn.

  • jbiking Madison, WI
    March 6, 2014 2:09 p.m.

    I'm glad there is a discussion about this issue and I hope Utah finds a way to accept Federal money for Medicaid expansion. I truly hope there is still some compassion remaining in the hearts of the people in Utah, after all...aren't we all beggars?

  • Clifton Palmer McLendon Gilmer, TX
    March 6, 2014 1:29 p.m.

    The only power over healthcare granted to the Federal government by the Constitution is the power to care for the health of the military and veterans. That power arises from the power to maintain an army and a navy.

    Medicare and Obamacare have no business existing, because the Constitution does not give the Federal government the power to enact or enforce them.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    March 6, 2014 1:18 p.m.

    araand - You say the Red States are more "prosperous?" How do you define prosperity?

    Sure, the states with mineral wealth, oil, coal, etc. have that going for them, and it generates a lot of money.

    But have you noticed that the Red States are also the least densely populated overall?

    And why do you think that is? It's because nobody wants to live there.

  • riverofsun St.George, Utah
    March 6, 2014 1:16 p.m.

    Ok, now tell us how the federal government intends to fund everything and why are decisions made as they are.
    Legislators are voted into office to decide who needs funding and why there is a great need it. It will depend how the program works and if it is helpful to those who are in need of Medicaid assistance for their health care.
    You can say the same thing about everything receiving federal or state monies.
    Obviously, many taxpayers, and just not Democrats in this case, have different preferences than you do.

  • dalefarr South Jordan, Utah
    March 6, 2014 12:07 p.m.

    Can someone articulate why the Herbert plan is better than accepting the federal money and expanding Medicaid to the poor? I just don't see an advantage to the State or to the poor.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    March 6, 2014 11:52 a.m.

    Ok liberals tell us how you expect to maintain the Medicaid expansion once the Federal money runs out? Did you know that the money being offered by the Fedeal government would only be for a few years, then we would be on the hook for maintaining funding levels?

  • Cowboy Joe Encampment, WY
    March 6, 2014 11:36 a.m.

    Of course Utah won't accept the money. They only accept corporate entitlements from the federal government not money to help the poor.

  • arand Huntsville, u
    March 6, 2014 11:34 a.m.

    Exactly right DN Subscriber and this is why we have States instead of one huge all in one government. The States were meant to be set up as experiments by our Founding fathers to see what works and what does not. All you have to do is look at the Blue States and their financial woes compared to the Red States who are prospering. UT is doing better than most. I do not see what part of that people don't understand. Let us try this and if it fails people can just simply move to another State and not have to move out of the Country. Or, the State can simply change directions.

  • WilliamLee Ogden, UT
    March 6, 2014 11:22 a.m.

    My family are ones that could benefit from the Medicaid Expansion. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a freeloader. I've paid into the system for many years, didn't always have the best jobs in the world, but earned enough to care for my family. When work became hard to come by, in my field, I changed careers and went back to college to become a special education teacher. However, in my last year of college for my Master's in Education, I developed a very aggressive form of glaucoma and I am now legally blind. Anyone wondering how I'm writing this being blind, it is called a screen reader. Anyway, my wife and I are both disabled and on Social Security Disability, which puts us on a fixed income. According to the "Obamacare" Healthcare Marketplace, I don't make enough money for their plans. I am eligible for Medicaid. Here is the problem, I make to much for Medicaid, according to DWS. So here I sit with no healthcare, and I need it for my eyes. I'm healthy otherwise.

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2014 11:09 a.m.

    We have already paid these taxes to the feds, it is beyond stupid to turn it down. Not taking this will not reduce the deficit by one penny. It just gives more money to the smarter states.

  • KatFitz27 Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2014 10:36 a.m.

    Well,duh. It's about time the Democrats got pro-active on this issue.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    March 6, 2014 9:22 a.m.

    JBQ - Your "government control" scenario really doesn't have much merit, at least not in the way you meant it.

    Yes, it is the function of the government to exercise a certain amount of control, especially when a situation is completely out of control and detrimental to the nation and its citizens.

    For many years now, the United States has had the highest Health Care costs in the world, with just so-so results; and that had to change.

    In 2000, the World Health Organization ranked the US number 37 in terms of health care. Number 37?!

    why should the greatest nation in the world be number 37 in something as important as health care?

    Thanks to President Obama and far-sighted Democrats, the government did take control of an out-of-control situation.

    Yes, I know there's all kinds of Right Wing Anti-Government Propaganda out there, but remember this: The founders gave us the Constitution for the very purpose of strengthening a government that had proved ineffective under the Articles of Confederation. The Founders gave us a government that can and does take control of otherwise out-of-control situations.

    The purpose of government is to govern responsibly.

  • wer South Jordan, UT
    March 6, 2014 9:07 a.m.

    It's easy to understand why states would leave federal money on the table: it's not taking free money. It's money that has long strings attached, not the least of which is adding layer upon layer of suffocating debt on us and future generations. It's the usual federal trap: they want us to think we are getting something for nothing. Anybody who thinks that will happen has hopelessly forgotten US history patterns.

  • LindaGJ Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    But of course, we don't want to take Federal money, do we? No, wait, UDOT gets plenty of it and bemoans the sequester cuts.It's only money to help poor people be healthy we don't want to take. To keep poor people out of the emergency rooms--where services cost ten times as much. To take money that lowers health costs for all because hospitals don't have to charge patients extra to cover the "free" services in emergency rooms. It all fails to make sense to me.

  • cookslc Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 6, 2014 8:27 a.m.

    Good for him. I fully realize the federal funds may disappear, just like they do for unemployment benefits, community block grants, brown field remediation, PILT, etc., all of which we happily accept and even seek after. When that happens, we scale back the program, just as we have PCN with limited enrollment periods. I simply do not understand why we do not accept money for our citizens. It will fund jobs, increase our tax revenues and might help people a bit more than debating our state tree

  • JBQ Saint Louis, MO
    March 6, 2014 8:22 a.m.

    Medicaid is a carrot from the left wing to take control of the health care system of each state. This is all about a march to the left and complete federal control in all areas. Democrats have got to start developing a backbone with a moderate leader to emerge or you have the same control that surfaced in the 40s with national socialism. Sure, the Republicans need to show reform. However, the idea according to political science professors in the University of Missouri system is to crush the Republicans and instigate one party rule. If that doesn't scare people, then it should. Yesterday's reports in the NY Times of the Senate rejection of Debo Adegbile for the Civil Rights division of the Justice Department is a step in the right direction. Seven Democrats (Montana, Delaware, Arkansas, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Dakota) joined with the Republicans to reject the nomination of a nominee who was involved in defending a far left "cop killer" in Philadelphia. The Democrats have the right idea but the current administration is moving ever relentlessly to the left and complete government control.

  • LOU Montana Pueblo, CO
    March 6, 2014 8:06 a.m.

    Obamacare is a rough draft and will need to be modified. I am happy that we have some kind of change in the system. Republican have done NOTHING for America or it's working class. If they are so full of great ideas then why have they not come up with something? Make note of this that when Obamacare is fine tuned they (Republicans) will be making false claims of how they are the ones who made it work.

    Please vote out any Republicans who want to take away your healthcare.

  • JimInSLC Salt Lake City, UT
    March 6, 2014 8:00 a.m.

    "Federal Money"? What a misnomer. Whether the money comes from the Federal Govt. or State Govt. it all comes from the taxpayer. A big problem is that the Federal Govt. does not collect in taxes as much as it distributes, it is printing money which future taxpayers will be on the hook to pay. Not to worry, they have no intention of paying the money back. The end result will be a collapse of the economy. How will all these social programs fare then? Not very well.

    All States should reject "Federal Money" and push for a lesser taxing of its citizens by the Federal Govt.

  • humbug Syracuse/Davis, UT
    March 6, 2014 7:11 a.m.

    Why don't we refuse the F-35 jets at HAFB? With the money that would save the Feds (deficit) we could then pay for health care expansion in Utah. Oh, wait. Health care expansion helps the poor. We don't want to do that. (Lockhart.) But, we are happy to accept Federal monies for defense or water or schools or anything other than the poor.

  • RBB Sandy, UT
    March 6, 2014 6:44 a.m.

    Yes, let's start a program subsidized by a government that is $17,000,000,000,000 in debt and has no plan for even balancing it's budget. Then when the feds cannot continue funding it, the state is on the hook for the full tab. The federal.government spends $20,000 per person in poverty per year. When is enough enough?

  • DN Subscriber Cottonwood Heights, UT
    March 6, 2014 6:43 a.m.

    Clearly a partisan political ploy to try to support the national democrats in their colossal failure of Obamacare.

    Anyone (from either party) who wants Utah to take the bait of federal money up front to accept the mandate to expand a program that is unsustainable and is already specified to receive LESS federal funding in the future is not thinking this thing through for the long term benefit of Utahns. Instead, they are thinking of the chance that someone might give them credit or blame for caring or not caring about the poor, the sick, the huddled masses yearning for free stuff, or the taxed enough already taxpayers who have to pay for all these "good ideas."

    Reject this foolish local democrat idea, and repeal the even worse Obamacare scam entirely at the national level.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    March 6, 2014 6:27 a.m.

    It's hard to understand why any state would leave Federal money on the table and then tax its citizens even more to create a plan that gives less coverage to fewer people.

    Essentially, the Tea Party wants to charge citizens more money for a much inferior product. Just taking the federal money would give the state much more comprehensive medical coverage for more people.

    Tea Party logic doesn't seem sensible to me . . . But maybe it's not supposed to make sense.

    This is not the first time in world history that ideologues in leadership positions have expected citizens to suffer to support a cause. Jim Jones and Hitler were more than happy to take their followers down with them in the end.

  • freedom in 2017 SLC, UT
    March 6, 2014 6:19 a.m.

    Of course they do. It's play money and no one need worry about where it comes from or who's going to pay it back...thanks libs

  • pat1 Taylorsville, UT
    March 6, 2014 5:59 a.m.

    Someone needs to consider the poor and the working poor in this state.

  • Joemamma W Jordan, UT
    March 6, 2014 5:40 a.m.

    We don't don't want to touch anything that has to do with obamacare.
    The obamacare bill is cursed and toxic!!
    Stay away from and don't accept anything that comes with it period..
    I have a better sugestion. Let's vote those Democrtas that want associate themselves with it out of office.