GOP legislative leaders tell governor state should not run federal health exchange

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Nov. 17, 2012 9:24 a.m.

    It's very simple -- if the governor, and the state, care about the people of the state then they will eschew political games and will join and operate the federal health exchange; but if the governor, and the state, do not care about the people of the state then they will play far-right extremist politics and will not join and operate the federal health exchange. The ball is in their court. Let's see if they really care about the people of the state that they are supposed to represent.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 16, 2012 5:05 a.m.

    Cherilyn Eagar - are you seriously saying the solution to the problem is to turn government employees into a large class of Walmart styled employees - with no insurance, no benefits, no retirement, and something that falls completely short of a living wage? That in fact, we should expand what Romney called his 47 percent class.

    I would like to see how increasing low wage jobs in America would solve our problems. I am sure some would benefit - but it would likely not be the average American family.

  • Cherilyn Eagar Holladay, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 9:34 p.m.

    Health care exchanges don't work. We already have "exchanges" in the private sector - they're called independent insurance brokers. Government should not be an insurance broker. It also will put those brokers out of business or force them to become government employees.

    Some school superintendents in Utah are making nearly $300,000 a year. Government jobs are now some of the best paying. Something is wrong with this picture.

    This article raised an interesting point: If we only hired part-time workers in government jobs, that would completely solve the problem of the high cost of insurance and other benefits, and it would put many of them back in the private sector, it would give many unemployed at least party time work, it would reduce costs and create greater prosperity where it belongs - in the private sector.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 4:53 p.m.

    America has gone socialist now so I really doubt there is anything that can stop the slide to bankruptcy. Some states like Utah and Texas will be able to delay the collapse ... for a while but in the end the entire nation will be a mirror of Italy, Greece and others. Those who oppose Obamacare will surely be punished since we don't live in a free society anymore so although I support Utah and other states who are trying to keep this ugly state exchange out I suspect it is like spitting in the wind. America is toast thanks to the people.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 15, 2012 4:45 p.m.

    This is all fine and good, if they firmly believe this. If this is truly a matter of principle (which I doubt - sounds more like political grand standing ), they will also turn down the other federal funds for the other programs the state administers - like Medicaid, medicare, Department of Education funds... etc.

    Lets not see conditional ethics, ethics based on headlines, but real ethics. Turn down the funds for all the programs you find morally unacceptable.

    Something tells me that isn't going to happen though. I doubt any of them have any more intent other than to garner themselves exactly what they got - headlines.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 3:50 p.m.

    old man
    this is not about Romney, but about Obamacare, which has been a major lie.

    But if you want to talk about lieing politicians

    no lobbyists in my administration
    cut the deficit in half
    unemployment won't go over 8%
    close GITMO
    try 9/11 masterminds in civilian court
    oppose gay marriage/favor gay marriage
    bills ont he internet for 48 hours before votes so all can read them
    etc ad infinitum

    BO's lied so much I've lost track of them all

    and then there are the LIES he told about his opponent in the campaign. Mitt cannot hold a candle to BO when it comes to the number and size of his lies.

    But since BO is a dem and a lib, you LOVE and accept his lies (or otherwise excuse them)

    Nov. 15, 2012 3:10 p.m.

    The governor should let the Feds run the rest of the programs in the state too, such as the Forest Service, BLM and others. Give up the "land grab" and let the feds do what they were mandated to do many years ago. If the State takes it over, state taxes will have to go up dramatically.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 1:22 p.m.

    No, lost. Costs are not going up because of ACA. They are climbing because ACA has not been fully implemented.

    And how can you write of lies when you just had a flock of them tossed out by Mitt?

  • mcclark Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 1:07 p.m.

    Good, let the Feds run it.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 12:12 p.m.

    old man,
    Obamacare does NOTHING to address the cost of care. NOTHING.

    despite the lies BO, nancy, and harry told to get it passed, costs have continued to climb.

  • JSB Sugar City, ID
    Nov. 15, 2012 12:09 p.m.

    I don't know a lot about Obamacare and what I do know, I don't like. Here's a few questions: 1) If a state opts out, does that mean that citizens of the state don't have to participate either? 2) Who gets covered? If a smoker gets a smoking related disease, does the government then cover treatment for the disease? 3) Doctors are now being required to submit their patient records to some national database. Why? This is very distressing. I believe my health history is my business, not the business of some government bureaucrat. What if someone hacks the system and publishes health issues of a prominent person? Or he can hack the system and change the record (e.g. eliminate a drug that the person is allergic to and then an unknowing provider prescribes the allergic drug. Clever way to murder someone). 4) I find abortion to be morally repugnant. Under Obamacare, will I be helping to fund abortion? Anything a state or congress can do to hamper implementation of Obamacare should be encouraged.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    Nov. 15, 2012 11:42 a.m.

    How long is it going to be before some of these same people complain about the lack of control by the state over the exchanges. As the Speaker of the House finally admitted, "Obamacare" is the law of the land. Its time to put our differences behind us and make this work for the thousands of uninsured in our state.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 8:53 a.m.

    Well, lost, if you want to continue paying much, much more for your medical insurance and care because you are picking up the tab for people who need care but can't get it, I guess that is your privilege.

  • S.Andrew Zaelit Deseret, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 8:04 a.m.

    The GOP Governors across the nation have a historic opportunity to say no to Washington by being a steadfast bulwark for the nation. Refusing to implement the exchanges would put both houses of Congress and the Executive on notice that they need to seriously address the issues in Obamacare before going forward. They need to read the law to expose the mendacity of those who wrote, passed, and signed the law.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 15, 2012 7:41 a.m.

    old man,
    Why is the state government's responsibility? Or ANY government's responsibility, for that matter?

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    Nov. 15, 2012 3:09 a.m.

    When the people lead, the leaders will follow. In this case, if the states (the people) don't cooperate, the federal government may listen and have to adapt.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Nov. 14, 2012 9:41 p.m.

    @ Kings Court

    So you think "Their own inaction and flippant avoidance of health insurance problems has led to more federal intrusions because if the states won't do it, the federal government will."

    Isn't it sad that the same isn't true for illegal immigration? Why did Arizona feel they needed to pass their own law if the mighty and "responsible" Feds were taking action that the States wouldn't take? And after Arizona stepped up to the plate, why did the Obama administration not thank them for handling an issues the "do-nothing Congress" wouldn't touch, but instead filed suit against the State of Arizona?

    Like politicians, the Feds have to have it both ways. That's the joy of federalism! (And what percentage of the American People did NOT want Obama care but they passed it anyway?) No wonder the US Congress has an approval rating of around 15%. You or I would be summarily fired if we performed that way for our employer.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Nov. 14, 2012 9:20 p.m.

    So what do they propose instead?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 14, 2012 8:15 p.m.

    The legislature can tell the governor they will not appropriate one nickel for this monstrosity and they will slash the governor's discretionary funds if he uses them to fund it.

    Kings court
    Why is the state government's responsibility? Or ANY government's responsibility, for that matter?

  • Kings Court Alpine, UT
    Nov. 14, 2012 7:41 p.m.

    If most of the states had actually begun their own heath exchange system to address the problems with health care, we may have never had Obamacare. Their own inaction and flippant avoidance of health insurance problems has led to more federal intrusions because if the states won't do it, the federal government will. Surprisingly, the state legislature seems more than happy to let the feds manage what they should have been doing all along even though they kick and scream about the federal government operating state programs. What a strange world we live in.