@DN Subscriber"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."States have the option to bail out
of the Medicaid expansion whenever they want to.@My2Cents"Before committing the lowly tax payers of Utah to more oppressive
taxation"They are already taxed, this is the Governor trying to
claim Utah's share of the Obamacare taxes that go to Medicaid expansion.@Icarus"that a study in Oregon showed the poor better off
health-wise without Medicaid than with it."It said there was no
substantive (i.e. statistically significant) improvement medically with Medicaid
not that they were worse off with Medicaid.This also doesn't
touch upon the fact that being insured on Medicaid is way better than being
uninsured when it comes to risk of bankruptcy over medical costs. Insurance
isn't healthcare, its purpose is control over the affordability of
I hope the legislature looks at the polls and realizes that Utah wants this Utah
solution which will help tens of thousands directly and thousands more
indirectly though helping the Utah economy. Thanks Gov. for your hard work and
careful planning. There are a lot of people with no jobs that have severe
emotional or anxiety problems or low I.Q. etc , so I hope this work requirement
idea won't be aplied to those with disabilities.
When left-wing idealogues throw around self-describing labels, it does not
advance reasoned discussion. RobertH says Medicare Part D is a huge
success. I guess he defines that as creating a huge network of overcharges,
fraud, waste and abuse. So why not expand that government model to cover
one-sixth of the economy? That would make fraud, waste and abuse closer to
something like one-tenth of the economy. What's wrong with that?
Governor Herbert does not need to convince the majority of Utahns on expansion.
He needs to convince the right wing idealogues in his own party.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Every polical figure always want's to "Expand" every thing. Time to
start shrinking some things.
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
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".
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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!