A. Scott Anderson: Medicaid gap: the governor's plan is common-sense solution

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    May 31, 2014 10:38 a.m.

    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 others' failures?

  • Schnee Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    "(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    "(3) Maximize state flexibility by creating a three-year trial period, after which the program could be revised or repealed.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.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    May 30, 2014 9:50 p.m.

    What will the tea party yell at this?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    May 30, 2014 8:31 p.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 30, 2014 4:33 p.m.

    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 Bountiful, UT
    May 30, 2014 3:51 p.m.

    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.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    May 30, 2014 3:51 p.m.

    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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 30, 2014 3:47 p.m.

    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 World...

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    May 30, 2014 2:55 p.m.

    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 subsidize us.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    May 30, 2014 11:12 a.m.

    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.

  • Wonder Provo, UT
    May 30, 2014 9:56 a.m.

    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.

    May 30, 2014 8:49 a.m.

    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 support.

  • MaryHthwy Salt Lake City, UT
    May 30, 2014 8:46 a.m.

    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!!

  • 10CC Bountiful, UT
    May 30, 2014 7:59 a.m.

    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!"

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    May 30, 2014 7:49 a.m.

    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.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    May 30, 2014 6:43 a.m.

    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.