Published: Friday, May 30 2014 12:00 a.m. MDT
When Barack Obama promoted passage of the ACA conservatives felt that he was a
despotic, socialist, orchestrating the "largest government take over" of
a health care system in the history of the galaxy. And whenever a
conservative finds something he likes in the ACA he is required by some
unwritten law to say:"I believe the Affordable Care Act is a
flawed law that needs major revisions or replacement"Of course,
when Mitt Romney passed a law very similar to the ACA, he was a compassionate
visionary looking out for the needs of his citizens.
The Govenor's proposal is not the most efficient but was designed to reach
out to right wing radicals that have taken over our goverment. Until voters
remove elected officals like Lockhart and others of her ilk we'll be
limited to what our goverment can do to improve the quality of life for many of
our citizens. If the DN really wants to see the Governor's proposal
become a reality they should clearly call out the obstructionists and their
flawed reasoning. The citzens support the Govenor our goverment does not.
Considering the political environment existing within the political majority in
Utah, I agree Herbert's plan has the best chance of success, here.Giving a cut to private business is a curveball that will cause some
conservatives to pause before going back on the attack. As we all know, money
does indeed talk, particularly in politics, and motivating private insurance
agents that they too get might some of the loot will help soften some hearts in
the Legislature.The governor should market his unique health plan as
a kind of trial of transferring millions of acres of Unites States land to Utah
(which would make a few Utahns fabulously wealthy while feeding the anti-federal
sentiment of the many). I would definitely de-emphasize the part
about providing health coverage to the hardworking poor who can't otherwise
get insurance, as the political right simply doesn't care about that
segment of their constituencies, and this sounds like liberalism.Even so, it will be an uphill fight for this plan, because defying Obama in
any and all possible ways is the highest political act one could engage in, here
in Utah."Don't let Barry look good, or reasonable!"
I have been a long time single payer advocate I understand the nuances of the
Governor's plan and I love it! Whatever the messaging he needs to convince
people his plan is a "block grant" and will fool the conservatives into
accepting it is great by me. Yes - the Governor's plan will use commercial
insurance, but the plans have to meet ALL the medicaid requirements and
protections for those in the plans: so smart, call it "private
insurance," but make the private insurance just like Medicaid! Best back
door plan to supporting Obama ever!!
Governor Herbert's plan is not the most efficient. It was not, however,
proposed by President Obama; so it may have some chance of garnering legislative
Wow, this idea of the governor sounds an awful lot like....Obamacare.
(Government subsidies paid to private insurance companies for those who
can't afford premiums.) But now it's great! Because you can propose
it and also look like you're thumbing your nose at Obama. And that is the
major goal in all of this.
The gov's plan still means Utah loses, and loses big. To the tune of about
$240 million a year. We will refuse to take this money which comes from us in
the first place simply because Gov and Mr. Anderson and others of their ilk do
not like Obama.
Utah is a State. A State is part of the Federation of States that make up this
Union. Utah has no right to expect another State to subsidize Medicare. The
Federal Government has no money until it taxes citizens. Any money
"given" to a State comes from taxes collected from citizens in other
States.If this Medicaid idea is correct, it will be entirely funded
by the citizens of Utah. Because the Governor is looking for
"outside" money, he is expecting other States to pay Utah's
obligations. I object to requiring others to subsidize Utah. If
the program is valid. We need to fund it fully without expecting other States to
It's not a good plan unless... someone else pays for the medical care I
consume, and I have to pay little of nothing for the best healthcare in the
Mike Richards -" If the program is valid. We need to fund it
fully without expecting other States to subsidize us."Interesting idea. I like it.In fact, there should be a special
tax on "Conservatives" anyway, just to pay for some the tremendous
damage they have done to this nation.And Utah is full of
"Conservatives."When you're right, you're right.
It is dishearting to read the prior comments and not see anyone mention that
since the federal government is running deficits, any additional federal
spending is 100% borrowed from future generations. How does it make
fiscal sense to spend borrowed money for current health insurance? The current
taxpayers should pay for current programs. At the very least we
should only take a percentage of funds that excludes borrowed money. For
example, if a federal budget included 25% borrowed funds, Utah would only take
75% for this program and return the other 25% to the U.S. Treasury.
re: GaryO,You're not from Utah. Are you willing to pay
Utah's bills? Are you willing to let the Federal Government tax you, your
children, and your grandchildren to pay the bills of another State? If not,
then you're comment is moot. If you are willing, then pay the bills out of
your own pocket and furnish proof that you've paid.Liberals
like to talk about the "rich guy", but when "they" are the
"rich guy", they suddenly run for the exit.I doubt very much
that you're willing to pay Utah's bills, notwithstanding your post.
The Federal Government has not money. It is at least $17 trillion in the red.
Why do you tell us that the "Government" will when the
"Government" has no money?
DonM -" . . . since the federal government is running deficits,
any additional federal spending is 100% borrowed from future generations.
""Conservatives never said a peep when Ronald Reagan TRIPLED
the national debt, and when GW Bush more than DOUBLED it again.Why
start whining now?But yes, we need to pay bills. We can start by
DOUBLING taxes on the highest earners.If we did that, those taxes
would be at 70 percent . . . Still lower than the 77% highest tax rate back in
1969 when went to the moon, fought the cold war, fought the Viet Nam war, and
STILL had a budget SURPLUS because we had enough revenue to pay our bills.Mike Richards -Yes we need to pay our bills, just like in
the good old days when we had a sensible tax structure.It's
really too bad that Reaganomics and Republican leadership got us out of the
habit of paying our bills.Now plutocratic deadbeats call the shots
in Republican America. When the Koch Brothers say JUMP, "Conservatives"
want to know how high. Today's trained Republicans are willing to
sacrifice their children's own best interests rather than demand a sensible
tax structure like we had in the pre-Reagan years.
What will the tea party yell at this?
"(1) Ensure individual responsibility by requiring participant cost-sharing
and work requirements."How could one fail to meet work
requirements while simultaneously making enough money to exceed traditional
Medicaid?"(2) Support the private sector by using private
insurance companies to provide health insurance (very few people would be added
to Medicaid rolls)."Handout to insurance companies. "(3) Maximize state flexibility by creating a three-year trial period,
after which the program could be revised or repealed. "Seems
that unlike some conservatives the Governor recognizes that states can choose to
take the Medicaid expansion and if the shift for the federal funding from 100%
to 90% in a couple years is too much a burden for a state they could always
choose to drop it later. "(4) Respect Utah taxpayers by bringing
home tax dollars they’ve paid to the federal government for these
purposes."That would be nice.
the best option is to say NO!liberal larry,after observing how
it failed to keep costs down and increased graft and corruption in MA, the
majority of the population learned it was a bad idea - that is why it was
opposed by the population when passed and we see all its promises were lies, and
the majority of the US population still opposes it. We learned from its failure
in MA.are you saying liberals are incapable of learning from
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments