To suggest that voters didn't understand Prop. 3 is degrading. There were,
and are, numerous publications that analyze it in detail. The
citizen's initiative came about because our state legislators have refused
since 2010 to take advantage of an opportunity to expand health care coverage to
persons earning less than $16,753 per year. Expanding coverage to
more low-income persons would allow 90% federal funding. That is up to $800
million per year. Utah's additional obligation is provided for in Prop. 3
by an increase in state consumption tax. Is it enough for 10% of expansion
cost? We understand that's an unknown. It is certainly enough, with a
state budget surplus, to begin implementation and impel our legislators to make
funding adjustments as necessary. HB 210 makes those adjustments and is
included as a "backstop" if SB 96 doesn't receive unlikely waivers
from federal officials. Expansion has many advantages including lowering the
overall cost of private insurance by reducing the number of uninsured. Kudos to the 3 House Republicans who had the courage to stand against their
party and vote with their constituents.
I voted for this bill because I thought the small sales tax hike would pay for
it.If what I'm reading now is correct that was not true, it was
a bait and switch.
@marxistRE: "Utah voters vote Republican because LDS are one party for
well known reasons"...---I partly agree with that today, but not
in the past. But I bet the reason is a little less obvious than you think.To get a clue on the main reason... Google and watch President
Benson's famous speech on "The Proper Role of Government"....
That will explain it for you.===I checked this the other
day, and our number of Ds and Rs who have represented us in Congress is about
50/50 R vs D. It's been more one-sided lately, but that's not
because the LDS people changed. They don't change much over time. The
Democratic-Party changed, not us. Back in the 60s/70s.We
didn't change in the 60s/70s, but the DNC sure did. And they've been
griping about us not voting for them ever since they took the bait and took that
hard-left turn.Google "United States congressional delegations
from Utah - wikipedia"...---There was lots of blue before 1977.
What changed? Us? I don't think so.Make sure you google,
"The Proper Role of Government"...PDF is available, or watch the
speech on YouTube.That will explain a lot about us and why we vote
how we vote.
FT 9:18RE: "Mormon church or land developers the only way the general
public can influence our legislators is thru ballot initiatives"...---Utah is pretty much the same as any other State when it comes to
Referendums.Have you ever lived anywhere else? Like California?They have Referendums in California all the time. And they aren't
dominated by any church or profession. So maybe it's not just Utah that
needs Referendums..And even if they pass, doesn't always mean
they become law.Remember the majority in CA voted to amend their
Constitution to not allow gay marriage. But it never became law.Google "2008 California Proposition 8 - Wikipedia"...---Prop 8, was a California ballot proposition and a state constitutional
amendment passed in the November 2008.It passed, but it never became
law. You know the history.Many propositions have passed, and
changed before they became law (inside and outside Utah).You just
need a more broad perspective. Almost everything that happens in Utah happens
other places as well.Think auto industry doesn't have any
influence in Detroit? They do.Think Financial industry doesn't
have influence in NYC? They do.Same here
The legislators would not have addressed any of these issues if the public had
not shown their utter disgust and passed the initiatives. Outside of the
Mormon church or land developers the only way the general public can influence
our legislators is thru ballot initiatives.
To "Maverick10" why don't you run as an independent? If things are
as you claim you should have an easy time getting elected.To
"patrioticAMERICAN" can you justify why we should give healthcare to an
able bodied person who could work but chooses not to? Would you give your child
everything they wanted without expecting them to do some sort of work?To "tabuno" I don't think you read the article very well. There
is a contradiction going on, and this is the result of that. First, we elected
people that don't want to expand medicaid, then people vote for Prop 3 to
expand medicaid. So, which voice of the people should be followed, the votes for
Prop 3 or the votes to put people in the legislature that don't want to
expand medicaid?Here it is in more simple terms. We vote for a tax
increase at the same time we elect people who want to limit taxes. Which voice
is the voice that should be listened to?To "marxist" it
won't change. Look at 2008, that was a Depression like market crash, and
nothing changed in Utah. More likely Utah will swing further right because we
don't want Socialism.
2bits I'm normally in agreement with you but Props 2, 3 and 4 were actually
for Laws. If the legislature did nothing, Those props would have all inserted
new lines into the state Code and been the Law of the land.Luckily
we have a legislature that will look over such poorly written laws and will make
the fixes needed to make them workable and not let uninformed voters, mislead by
shiny brochures, appealing slogans and flashy TV ads bind the state into
unconstitutional spending that puts this state in debt.Question 1
was just that, a question, had it passed the legislature would have been asked
to consider legislation to implement it, but it was not binding. 2, 3 and 4
were proposes laws that when passed became the law of the State unless the
Legislature acted to prempt them wilth laws that are actually legally and
fiscally sound.Prop 2 and 3 were full of holes, the legislature had
no choice but to act to change them. It could not leave them alone.
Utah voters vote Republican because LDS are one party for well known reasons.
This will change only if we have a Depression sized disaster. In the meantime
Republicans have absolute rule.
That's easy. They are going to vote for a Republican and the caucus system
ensures that the Republican candidates toe the line.
Don BixbyRE: "propositions are actual law"...---No.
It was not a law. It was a question. Questions are not laws.Google
"Utah Proposition 3, Medicaid Expansion Initiative (2018)"...A "yes" vote supported this measure.A "no" vote
opposed this measure.But the legislation wasn't written yet.
They write it based on the results of the referendum.Referendums
aren't laws themselves, they tell the legislature what we want. It's
the legislature's job to go craft the actual law after they get the results
of the Referendum.Laws have IDs. Like HB-xxx or SB-xxx. A
referendum tells the legislature what we want. But voting yes did not pass a
new law. It told them what the majority wants.The resulting
legislation (HB 472) is a law.It passed and was signed by the
Governor. That's how laws are passed.HB 472 expanded coverage
to 100 percent of the federal poverty line. Not 138%. So they didn't
totally follow the will of the people. But it was their response to the
referendum taking into account tax revenue and budget realities.No
new law went into affect the day we voted yes. That started the process of
writing the law based on the referendum. HB 472.
One of the key challenges our nation faces is the sharp rise in costs for
medical and dental treatment. Drug companies, hospitals and insurance companies
appear to be unable to control their costs. Part of the problem is that we the
people continue to demand the very latest treatments, which demand the latest,
most expensive technologies.
Yes, "Simple sound bytes, simple flyers, and dumbed down political speeches
that contain little in the way of substance. Voters are rarely given sufficient
information . . ." Like the information FOR proposition 3 that did not
explain it was not appropriately funded, that did not explain how being open
ended could cost the State hundreds of millions more, that if the Federal Gov.
cut back or eliminated funds to the State the State would still be liable for
that amount."Simple sound bytes, simple flyers, and dumbed down
political speeches" certainly did not state anything about the half million
dollars that came in from a California Health Workers Union in support of Prop
3.At the very least people should have been told that in it's
present form prop 3 would have to find an additional, ongoing revenue stream
that would raise taxes or take from other funds.
I think that the people can vote anything they want to IF they will also vote
concurrently to accept without complaint the tax increase that will accompany
the funding of the bill. Also it would be nice if these "feel good"
bills had a mandatory expiration date or re-authorization by also by
plebiscite.Also since these are fiscal bills, maybe a super majority
of say 60% should be needed to pass, because we are taxing everyone to pay for
this change in state expenditures.Another idea would be to provide
for charities to fund medical care or subsidize premiums for ineligible people.
We used to have various charities who did, and still do, fund medical services
for people. Supporters of these bills would be free to donate to their
heart's content.Be careful of any government bearing or giving
gifts. Ask not for whom the bill or toll is for, it is for thee,
To take some liberty with your traffic analogy, Jay, voters are the tractor,
legislators are the trailer, and the trailer is pulling the tractor. That's
the kind of politics and policy you get when one party has a super-majority. I
agree with @tabuno that voters really don't know who they are voting for;
seems they will vote for anyone who has an "R" behind their name.
'Tis to weep.
2 bits, in spite of your saying it something along the lines of a dozen times in
your comment that propositions are an opinion for general direction rather than
an actual law, propositions are actual law.Now, the legislature may
interpret it the way you repeatedly said it, but that doesn't make it true.
Why else would they have been so desperate to call the special session on
medical marijuana just a few weeks before the regular session was to start? They
couldn't wait to write an actual law based on our opinion? Nope. It was
because we passed a law that was going to take effect before they came into
session.Opinion question 1 about raising the gas tax was just that -
asking for our opinion. It was very clearly labeled as different from the
propositions.I will say that while I voted for medical marijuana, I
felt like the changes the legislature made were not all that big of a deal. The
implementation is a little different, but I think we got more or less what we
wanted. What they've done here regarding healthcare coverage is different.
This seems like a more significant deviation from the original law that was
passed.They better stay away from redistricting.
RE: "Why was Prop. 3 changed?"...---Probably because we
voted without any context of what was affordable in the State Budget.Referendums give general direction. They don't constitute law per se.
We aren't a Legislature, making laws when we vote for a referendum. We are
telling them a general direction we want them to go. There was no law affixed
to the referendum we voted for, just a direction.Democrats keep
pretending we passed a law when we voted yes or no on the referendum.
Malarkey. What we told them is... we want you to write a law that goes this
general direction. We didn't pass a law when we voted for it. We voiced
our opinion. It's up to the legislature to take the feedback from the
Referendum and write the law. We didn't pass a law when we passed the
referendum.The legislature did go the general direction we gave them
in the referendum. They also took into account the State Budget, and things we
didn't know when we voted.I think it's OK to let the
legislature legislate. And we give general direction in referendums.
Direct Democracy government, IE Propositions is bad and dangerous. Laws need to
be carefully thought out and implemented. Using the shotgun approach to
governing results in bad government.I read Prop 3 and studied as I
did the other props that got passed. After research, I didn't vote for any
of them.Yes we should have a safety net for those of us who are in
great need. But the safety net shouldn't be permanent unless there is an
individual need such as disability.When I was a kid, my parents had
Catastrophic Health insurance. We paid our own way to the doctor and for minor
stuff. Maybe that is the type of insurance that would benefit most, especially
the young. Insurance shouldn't be designed to pay for everything.That type of insurance would be much cheaper that all encompassing.
One can debate special interests influencing legislators more or voters more;
but it does seem that propositions do galvanize the legislature to take action
on an issue instead of dodging it. Maybe that's a plus.
The problem here is exactly what I argued before the election...a ballot
proposition does NOT outline implementation. Everyone around me, in November,
interpreted the proposition as an implementation plan. Now people are screaming
because it's turned out differently than they expected. We
have not acted intelligently in past elections where propositions are concerned
and we have no one to blame but ourselves.
@Maverick10...Your heartfelt concerns also concern me (a conservative), as you
ask for leaders of courage. I wish there was a way we could help
those really in need IF they commit to a consistent level of personal
responsibility when receiving that help. Medicaid tax dollars
should not be going to those who engage in a myriad of bad health habits, are
grossly overweight, drink and smoke, abuse drugs, make poor food choices, refuse
to work when able, and/or are in the country illegally. It's not fair to
taxpayers and it has nothing to do with religion or party affiliation.
It's just commonsense fairness. I don't see the state asking people
to change their destructive lifestyles in order to receive taxpayer assistance.
As a young parent years ago, I stood in many grocery checkout lines
with fresh or frozen vegetables, meager meat purchases and no desserts. Almost
always, I was behind young mothers with many unkempt children buying foods with
food stamps that I couldn't afford, yet I was buying (through taxes) their
prepared foods.The "government" can only GIVE to someone
what it TAKES from someone else.
There is a glaring flaw in reasoning here regarding voters electing their state
legislators who then vote against the public's wishes. The real problem is
how our voters are limited in their being informed as to who they are voting for
as their representatives. Simple sound bytes, simple flyers, and dumbed down
political speeches that contain little in the way of substance. Voters are
rarely given sufficient information by the candidates and the information that
is available to voters are oftentimes created and submitted to news outlets by
the candidates themselves. The voters are seen more as numbers and statistics
in an attempt to manipulate their votes based on emotions and minimal disclosure
of policy positions. If there is any fault when it comes to voters,
the primary blames falls back onto the electoral system and the little space or
time that news outlets such as this newspaper devotes to state and local
candidates that makes it too easy for candidates to get elected without
committing to anything at all. No wonder the public can't trust many of
their state legislators, they don't really know what their legislator
stands for at all. This is the real contradiction.
Funny--this is the same thing I said yesterday when I read several nat'l
online news articles abt Utah legislators ignoring (again) what the public
mandated in the recent election. Elections do have consequences--app. if you
vote for Repubs, you can count on them ignoring what the public has mandated
(0/2 so far) & also apparently being stingy (they like to call it
"frugal") towards the poor & the needy, at least in using govt funds
(regardless of what they do in their personal lives). They were
quick to use this as an excuse to tack on a work requirement. People in Red
states that have already implemented this have been dropped off the rolls in
record #'s, (according to numerous reports I've read), as the
paperwork required for such a requirement has proven to be complicated &
onerous. Instead of adding thousands more vulnerable people to the list of those
being saved, the good intentions of the maj. of Utahns will likely be turned
against them, & we'll likely see the same thing happen here--I
don't see why Utahns would have diff exp. than other beleaguered citizens
have had.You know what they say abt the def. of insanity. I
can't wait to see what they do w/redistricting!
It matters not what the voters say or do. If the Central Committee of the Utah
Republican Party does not like it; It will simply not happen. The power that
this group of Republicans holds over this State is very, very sad. I would
wish for the day when all parties would be abolished and all people running for
any office could say what they really felt. So often we have no idea what
someone running for office really believes or thinks. So often they just spew
the party line. We need people who are independent of the a party; who have
courage to say what they really believe not what some party says they should
say. We will never come together as a county, state, city, etc. until we have
leaders who have courage. We need people who are willing to bust the party
lines; what ever party that is; it matters not. I fear that will never happen.