Comments about ‘Governor Gary Herbert wants Medicaid expansion in place by January’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, June 14 2014 1:14 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
DN Subscriber
Cottonwood Heights, UT

It's a trap!

Don't do it, we will never be able to pay for all the stuff you will be committing future Utah taxpayers to do, with the absolute certainty that Washington will be paying less and less each year-- while imposing additional mandates.

Again, it is a trap!

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

Hold on Governor, not so fast, this is not your call or demand to make. Before committing the lowly tax payers of Utah to more oppressive taxation and unemployment and loss of jobs we must not get hasty in your maniacal midlife crises crazy actions.

It is up to the peoples representatives and matching cost overhead we cannot support making this expansion into an albatross tax fund. Representatives must obey the people to make this choice, the movement is to a more conservative approach to govenremnt spending including in health care. Downsizing state and federal government means eliminating government in social programs and civil needs. Individuals must provide for themselves and doubling of wages is not a tax burden.

Its a loose loose situation to throw more money at a health care system that is a failure. Romney care of Utah is a tax burden not suitable to the needs of the tax payers although its a blessing to illegal aliens and professional welfare dependents and for uncontrolled extremely costly medicaid/hospital providers.

There must be no passage of this expansion since the ACA and the fraudulent Utah health care exchange will be revoked and repealed by January.

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

So soon?

Icarus
Dallas, Texas

Unbelievable that a governor of a conservative state would be pushing for this. Must be a lot of campaign contribution from hospitals at stake.

The saddest thing is that this will trap the poor in a government-run program that a study in Oregon showed the poor better off health-wise without Medicaid than with it.

It's the typical liberal response--the government has done such a poor job with healthcare (VA, Obamacare, etc.), let's expand it.

humbug
Syracuse/Davis, UT

I am bothered by the work requirement. Students in college are "working." They just don't get a pay check. Non-working spouses may be "working" by providing child care for their children. But, they don't get a pay-check. Mentally ill persons may not be able to work without health care first.
If these persons end up in the hospital, and they don't have health coverage, then who pays the bills? The hospitals write the bill off, and shift the costs to others. Ultimately, we pay for their care via medicaid, or higher insurance premiums.
Some people are not able to work because of fragile health issues. Who decides what qualifies a person as fragile? We then need a whole bunch of persons to make these decisions and these persons have to be paid. This increases the cost of running the program.

humbug
Syracuse/Davis, UT

I am in favor of co-payments (having skin in the game.) I'm in favor of using private insurance. But, I am opposed to the work requirement. This will leave half of the people without coverage. Mentally ill persons often aren't able to work 20 hours per week. Students often work 12 - 15 hours per week. Thus, no coverage under the Guv's plan. Homeless persons may not be able to work that much without first obtaining housing.

Balanced
Salt Lake City, UT

The Governor should accept nothing less than full expansion. Other Republican governors, such as John Kasich of Ohio and Jan Brewer of Arizona have expanded. Gov. Herbert could sell this expansion to the thoughtful citizens of Utah. Instead, he is cowering to Becky Lockhart and other House leaders. Our Governor has the highest approval of any governor in the U.S. Man up and take her on! We are sending over $700 million to Washington in ACA taxes and getting not a penny in return. Expansion is a win win situation for Utah. He could be one of our greatest governors of all time if he would show some leadership and fight for what is right.

This isn't just about compassion. This is about a healthy population and attraction of business and jobs into our state. Everyone's health premiums will drop if the hospitals are not writing off bad debts because of the uninsured. Every citizen of Utah will benefit if we accept full expansion, not just those that have no health insurance. Tell Becky Lockhart to support what's best for Utah; and not let her ambition to be the next governor be her driving force.

BoringGuy
Holladay, UT

It's about time. The Governor is doing the right and honorable thing making health care more accessible to children, families, and single parents. Don't listen to those on here opposing Medicaid expansion who clearly have zero understanding of the health care system or how it works.

Mr. Herbert won my respect and possibly my vote. Thank you sir.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Icarus writes, "The saddest thing is that this will trap the poor in a government-run program that a study in Oregon showed the poor better off health-wise without Medicaid than with it."

The "study" was full of holes, but it provides fodder to the (insured) naysayers who do not miss an opportunity to bash the president or the government. But seriously, Icarus, do you think that people with no medical coverage are going to be healthier than those with coverage? And less stressed? But even if you were right--how can someone with Medicaid be "trapped"? Since lack of medical care (or paying for it out of pocket) supposedly makes you healthier, couldn't they just refuse to go to a doctor?

Wonder
Provo, UT

Icaras -- The poor are better off without Medicaid than with it?????? I cannot fathom how you think it is better. Let me guess. You are over 65 and have Medicaid, so what do you care.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Right, DN Subscriber. Everyone knows that people without medical insurance are happier and better off than people with insurance. And I can say with certainty that you are not one of the 100,000 Utahns who are uninsured.

Utefan60
Salt Lake City, UT

The government health care program is a success no matter what the GOP and Tea OParty say. It reduced my premiums from a Cobra program of almost $1400 to one tenth of that and I still have private insurance and see the doctor I want. I'm getting tired of this bad mouthing of a program that has given health care to almost 10 million more than any GOP program has. The Gov. need to expand Utah's health care immediately.

Icarus
Dallas, Texas

@Laura Billington, on the contrary this study was quite robust and controlled for all sorts of variables. I would rather we do things for the poor that will truly help them, not assuage liberals' consciences.

Laura Bilington
Maple Valley, WA

Icarus, the people in the groups were self selected and the "outcomes" bore little resemblance to a gauge of general health. That is, if somebody's blood pressure went down, it was a "good" outcome even if they died a month later.

In any case, do you seriously think that no insurance beats Medicaid? If so, might I suggest you drop your own health insurance (so you will, apparently, have a better "outcome".

John Jackson
Sandy, UT

The requirement that they work or be looking for work interests me. I thought Healthy Utah was only for those who currently are making just more than what is allowed to qualify for Medicaid. Doesn't that mean, they are, indeed, working? I guess there are those who are on unemployment and disability who are not working.
I would be interested to know what work requirements the state has for SNAP (which is Food Stamps) and TANF.
I, too, believe this is something we should get done. Have a friend on Medicaid who took a job. The job doesn't have insurance, but, as I understand it, he will now be making too much money to qualify for Medicaid. I wish the new coverage had been in place before he took this job.
One thing I wonder about Healthy Utah is if it just going to take federal money, then funnel that money through private insurers, what is the difference? Is putting the face of private enterprise on it going to make it really a private endeavor if government is still paying for it?

U-tar
Woodland Hills, UT

Every polical figure always want's to "Expand" every thing. Time to start shrinking some things.

Robert H
Sandy, UT

Medicare part D is gov. run. It's a huge success. Any politician that thought out loud "repeal this program" and he/she is finished. Everything the government touches in healthcare isn't all bad! By the way, that was a George W. Bush implemented program. I am very sympathetic to, and vote Republican. But this should be a non-partisan. I was skeptical at first but I have seen the ACA work for my family members. They were on HIP Utah which was for people with pre-existing conditions. The premiums were outrageous and the out of pocket before any benefit was seen was even worse, $6,250 per person. Now with the ACA they have the same coverage (network and doctors), cheaper premiums and a $500 max out of pocket before insurance kicks in. The old system wasn't working. Give this a chance, it works. The people bashing expansion are those that have sweet insurance already and have the attitude, screw everyone else--it's their problem. SELFISH. As @Balanced said, Becky Lockart is on the wrong side of this issue and she needs to be exposed for hurting not just 110,000 uninsured Utah residents, but all of us.

Henderson
Orem, UT

So apparently some of you believe that Medicaid or no insurance is better than having health insurance?

Jeez!

What planet are you people from? State one case of someone voluntarily giving up their insurance for Medicaid/no insurance.

It's becoming quite silly this health care discussion. We pay for the uninsured already via higher hospital rates and premiums. The tax money has already been taken. Might as well get some bang for our buck. Otherwise, we'll essentially be "double taxed" via federal taxes and then later with higher premiums or our own silly state tax for health care (yet another silly idea from Lockhart).

Is that what some of you want? To be double taxed?

John Jackson
Sandy, UT

This morning's paper was a wake-up, pertaining to government halth care, with he Senate offering legislation for the V.A. -- doubling the cost. Now, since I'm among those who said if the V.A. hospitals were experiencing long waits, fix it by getting more doctors, I'm as much to blame as the rest of the chorus. We asked for a fix, and billions of dollars later, it may be on its way. Everyone deserves health care, needs it, but we do need to show restraint in how much comes out of Uncle Sam's pocket. With a debt of almost $18 trillion, he cannot afford it. Becky Lockhart is right that we should look for other means of funding. Sam's broke.

Balanced
Salt Lake City, UT

John Jackson, you obviously have healthcare; that's working out well for you? Ya, that's what I thought. Becky Lockhart has healthcare too so we all know why she doesn't want to expand. It won't cost you and I any more in taxes if we expand. We've already paid the taxes, but instead of the money coming back to Utah our money is going to pay for everyone else's healthcare in the U.S. that expanded. That makes so much sense. Why don't we ask Utahans to take a pass on receiving social security payments since the deficit is so high? It doesn't matter that we paid social security taxes already, right? Afterall, our country is broke, right? So let's all do the right principled thing in Utah and demand that no social security money come into this state.

to comment

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