Letter: Utah needs full Medicaid expansion

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Flipphone , 00
    April 20, 2019 9:23 a.m.

    Medicare for all will be a huge bonus for employers who currently provided healthcare to their employees. Because employers will no long have the expense of providing healthcare to their employees, employees will pay for government ran health care by increasing income taxes.

    Nothing is "FREE"

  • The Dark Knight Salt Lake City, UT
    April 18, 2019 12:08 p.m.

    The changes made to Prop 3 for SB 96 are bad for Utah. They force us to oay more for less for the bridge plan, and to say they save us money in the long run is misleading at best (the per capita cap Utah plans to request has the potential to eventually eliminate federal funding entirely and leave Utah on the hook for 100% of its Medicaid expenses.). SB 96 was an ill-conceived rush job based on partisan spite, not savings.

  • Confused Sandy, UT
    April 18, 2019 12:00 p.m.

    I am wondering if any those people who support "Medicare/Medicaid" for all has ever had to use those two programs?

    It makes no sense to me at all, because My mother(Age 90) was on both programs and still had to have an supplement insurance program to cover all the things she needed.

    So exactly "how" putting everyone on this system will help? It limits what you can go to the doctor for, where you can go and how much it pays... People on these programs, like I said, has to have additional insurance to make it work.

  • Zabilde Riverdale, UT
    April 18, 2019 7:52 a.m.

    Once again we hear the myth of the Millions in Utah paid federal dollars that we are leaving behind. Totally false. Utah already receives more federal money every year than we pay in as tax payers. Any federal money was taken from tax payers in other states. We get more than we pay in because the Feds own so much of the state. I'm fine with the Feds owning all that land but if a higher percentage of the state were in private hands, paying taxes then that imbalance would resolve itself.

    The fact is that as written Prop 3 would have cost Utah far more in the long run than the replacement will. Yes the replacement is more expensive now, at the beginning. But we also won't be hit as hard when those federal dollars drop out in a couple years. Or we could have left prop three in place and in a few years suddenly had to scramble to fund the program, which likely would have resulted in money being taken from Education. Or at a minimum there being less money available for spending increases for education.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    April 17, 2019 3:57 p.m.

    Why is it the responsibility of the state of Utah to provide medical care to the people who live here? Why don't people pay for their own medical care? I pay for mine. I don't want a handout.

    Certainly there are people in difficult situations that need help. That's what charity is for.

    Some advocate for "Medicare for all". Given how badly Medicare works, that seems like a really bad idea. Here are two things that could make a meaningful difference:

    1. Stop giving tax breaks to corporations for paying for health care for their employees. Large corporations self-insure, meaning all their employees are out of the insurance market. Put everybody back into the marketplace. Cut the health-care tie between employees and employers.

    2. Stop the idea that insurance is for paying for a doctor visit. Insurance is for catastrophic things, like your house burning down or your car getting totaled.

    While we're at it, forget the idea that pre-existing conditions ought to be covered. There should be severe financial penalties for someone who doesn't buy insurance because they're healthy. Insurance can't work if people do that.

  • dulce et decorum est , 00
    April 17, 2019 1:16 p.m.

    I appreciate the author for recalling attention to the need for full medicaid expansion and the insights into how our legislature has done wrong by the people of Utah. We need to remember the legislators' contempt for the people at the ballot box.

  • NoNamesAccepted St. George, UT
    April 17, 2019 12:50 p.m.

    Time and again I see covetiousness and class envy manifest as, "Raise someone else's taxes to pay for stuff I think is a good idea."

    I am not rich, except perhaps as compared to someone living in a 3rd world nation, or maybe folks who have trouble rising above the average income level. But I benefited from the Reagan and Trump tax cuts. I'm still over taxed on both the State and federal level, especially when we consider on all the programs I'm funding that I don't qualify for or that some want to from me if I do currently qualify from Pell and other financial aid for college to Social Security retirement. I spend a working lifetime paying into it and then some would means test me out of any benefits.

    I never see anyone posting, "My taxes are too low and so I'm voluntarily over-paying to help fund things I think are a good idea."

    Nope. At best lefties will only pay more if others do too. More common, they just want to soak someone else. While my taxes are far too high, I donate generously to private charities that efficiently help those in need. Give it a try.

    It is hard to believe anyone actually wants Trump in charge of their medical care. Socialized medicince does that.

  • RedShirtCalTech Pasedena, CA
    April 17, 2019 12:30 p.m.

    To "ConservativeCommonTater " but if you expand Medicaid that is what you get. More people and less money per person to spend.

    Other states have found that expanding Medicaid has resulted in higher than anticipated costs or less money being available to care for the very needy.

    To "Thomas Jefferson" But we cover all our people regardless of who is paying for it. But the bigger question that your ilk won't answer is why do you want to get rid of the most advanced healthcare system in the world in favor of something less? Would you trade in a Ferrari for a Ford Pinto just so you can be like everybody else?

    To "Kent C. DeForrest" you say that we couldn't afford the Reagan, Bush, or Trump tax cuts, but what about the Obama tax cuts that were even larger, or the JFK tax cuts, or all of the other tax cuts that Democrats have given us? Why is it that it is only tax cuts from Republicans that we can't afford? It seems very biased to single out only Republicans when talking about tax cuts. But why don't you even consider the spending increases that Democrats gave us, such as the Obama job program that cost over $100,000 per job.

  • Kent C. DeForrest Provo, UT
    April 17, 2019 9:29 a.m.

    "There are lots of ideas floating around both in this state and nationally and most of them we cannot afford."

    We cannot afford them because of the Reagan tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts, and the Trump tax giveaway to the wealthy and to corporations. If we had the moral courage to tax like our parents and grandparents did after World War II, we could afford a lot of things we really need to do, such as health care for all, restoring our crumbling infrastructure, and combatting global warming. But as long as we keep telling ourselves the lie that we are the most overtaxed nation on earth, we can't afford very much, except yachts and ever-larger mansions in exclusive neighborhoods.

    Among the top-tier OECD nations, we pay by far the lowest taxes. Time for a reality check.

  • Thomas Jefferson Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2019 8:26 a.m.

    We need single payer for the whole country. The insurance lobby has a stranglehold on our legislators because our campaign finance system is one of legalized bribery.

    Every other modern country covers all their people and spends half of what we do to do it.

    We need to uncouple health insurance from employment. This would be a huge boon for business and provide much more freedom for employees. That freedom would result in fewer people chained to their jobs which would drive up wages.

    But the people who would need to change this are the same ones who benefit from the current situation. And they will continue to distract us with things they never plan on doing anything about like abortion and climate change.

    /Term limits would help too. Re-elect no one, ever. Politics should not be a career.

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    April 17, 2019 8:11 a.m.

    Our Republican legislators would rather pay more to cover fewer people with fewer benefits than expand medicaid.

    They are worried that some people will get something for nothing. Very greedy and selfish of them.

    BTW, every single person in the U.S. that has a healthcare program is being subsidized by others. But out legislators don't care as long as someone else pays and subsidizes the healthcare coverage of those people.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    April 17, 2019 7:22 a.m.

    "It is inaccurate to state that 150,000 Utahns benefit from the new partial expansion — in reality, roughly half of those potential enrollees are now being left out."

    Inaccuracy and outright deception are cornerstones of the Utah Legislature. Remember the 500 million prison move. Most now acknowledge it'll be closer to 1 billion, which means it will end up at 1.5-2 billion. So what do we do with our political leaders that mislead us? We re-elect them.

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    April 17, 2019 7:10 a.m.

    If you look just at the medical coverage the author might be correct bait if you look at the entire cost to the Utah taxpayer the author is probably wrong. There are lots of ideas floating around both in this state and nationally and most of them we cannot afford.
    We must examine the long term picture to find the true cost and in this case the federal government was only assisting for a short time.