Becky Lockhart has to stop hating President Obama, be an adult, and do
So the State would use block grants (aka tax dollars) to have citizens buy
insurance thru private health care providers. Sounds like Obamacare or
Romneycare to me. Imitation is the highest form of flattery. The more you know
about America's crazy health care system the more you realize, unless you
take private insurance companies out of the mix, this is the most cost efficient
way to provide coverage.
The tea party has created a mess.
There's always the option of, I dunno, maybe expanding medicaid and making
the federal government food 100% of the bill now and 90% of it later.If it makes Republicans feel better, they could always require drug testing or
some other misanthropic precondition.
Sounds like a practical solution to politically difficult problem. The Governor
should be congratulated. Now if politicians can put aside ideology and adopt
this proposal, most Utah residents will now have access to health insurance.
@ Jlindow---But how would the insurance salesman get his cut, and how about the
insurance company, it needs its cut. How is Herbert going to get them to give
him money if all the money goes to providing medical care?
Someone, at some point, has to pull the reins in on the endless and infinite
giveaway programs if we're going to survive as a nation. We're now
$17,000+ BILLION worse than bankrupt, and although the open hands and empty
mouths are endless, there's a real limit to how much insanity we can handle
and still keep it together as a country and a society. The socialists seem to
believe that the gravy train has no end, but we better find an end, and start
satisfying our needs and wants with actual production rather than
"redistribution," or we're toast.
No it's not the Tea Party that has made this mess. The Tea Party is an
outcome of his policies. Though I'm not a Tea Party supporter, I'm
also not an Obama supporter. The mess we are in is the outcome of Progressive
ideology and corrupt politicians, and greedy people that want a better life not
through their own efforts, but off the backs of productive members of society.
They are unwilling to put in the work and sacrifice to do better themselves.
"...Gov. Gary Herbert offered his own "Utah solution" to Medicaid
expansion Thursday... calling for a new state-run program...paid for through a
block grant from the federal government...".A new state-run
program...paid for by the Federal Government...So...Instead of accepting funds from the Federal Government..."..."Healthy Utah" would enable the state to cover 111,000 Utahns
earning less than $15,500 a year, the same number as a full expansion of
Medicaid. But the plan would use federal funds to help the needy buy private
insurance...".So...Instead of accepting funds from
the Federal Government...Utah will accept funds from the Federal
It doesn't say in this story, but the governor may be thinking of how
poorly Medicaid actually serves its recipients in states such as California
where it has been expanded. I once paid for an appendectomy for my nephew
because the doctor on duty in the small California town where he lived
wouldn't take Medi-Cal (California's version of Medicaid) and
suggested that his parents drive him 218 miles to another hospital.It remains to be seen whether the policies sold under the governor's
proposal are any better than expanded Medicaid, but they can't be worse.
Just because you have health "coverage" doesn't mean you have
health care when you need it.
The Governor is asking the wrong question and proposing the wrong solutions. Of
course, the Obama "fix" just makes things worse, as always.The root problem to be solved has two parts:One is how to provide
MORE medical care which will increase availability and reduce costs to
consumers.The second is the crippling and demeaning notion that it
is the responsibility of taxpayers to provide healthcare to anyone other than
those who have contractually earned it (e.g.- disabled veterans). Charity is
the solution to much of the need. The other part of this issue is the similar
notion that besides healthcare, the federal government somehow owes people
college educations, free telephones, housing, food, and anything else that might
buy votes from people who want "gimmes" more than freedom.We
are broke and cannot afford Medicare, or a block grant to a state to spend on a
different program. We also cannot afford to keep the promises made (and broken
by Congress) to working Americans.Stop the spending on all the
"free stuff!" It is not fair to steal from unborn generations to buy
CDL wrote: The mess we are in is the outcome of Progressive ideology and corrupt
politicians, and greedy people that want a better life not through their own
efforts, but off the backs of productive members of society. Then
why are the states that take in more tax dollars than put in generally
conservative states? Why are the poorest regions of the nation also the
reddest?Seems to me ideology and emotion shade your vision. It is
progressive ideology that seeks to increase the size of the economic pie so more
people are able to advance themselves. Tea party types supported the massive
growth of government during the last administration and saw surpluses turn into
over a trillion dollar deficit in 2009. All without one word of complaint.Fiscal responsibility did not enter the GOTP vocabulary till January 20,
@one vote, the Tea Party has not created a mess. The out of control
Progressive philosophy is the cause of many of the messes we are in. Obamacare
is a disaster like all the liberal ideas forced on us by liberals, whether a D
or an R is next to their name.
An interesting plan. I guess Utah just can't expand medicaid which would
be simpler, more than likely more cost effective and cost the taxpayers of Utah
less, but at least its a whole lot better than Lockhart's illogical plan.
The devil will be in the details but it could be a decent solution. I think it
would make more sense to expand medicaid to 100% of the poverty level and do
Herbert's type of plan for those above the poverty line but still below the
threshold where subsidies kick in (138% of poverty).
Herbert's plan gyps all of us. We're in line for at least a half
billion dollars in Medicaid funding and he will only accept half? We pay those
taxes and then lose 50 cents on the dollar? What kind of logic is that?
I hesitate at a plan that would take government money and give it to private
insurers, partly because I always wonder if a lobbyist had a say in
legislation. Sounds like I was wrong in supposing Lockhart was suggesting
a state solution in order to sidestep adding to the national deficit. When she
had said federal funds were unsustainable, I supposed she was thinking that
while the federal government does have some funds, eventually it would kick over
in the national debt. I supposed she was, in essense, saying, We'll help
all those we can, but we won't take money that must be borrowed. We will
pay for it upfront, even though it means it must come out of the state's
pocket instead of the federal government's. But, I must be wrong,
for the story quotes her as saying Medicaid expansion is "putting at risk
hundreds of millions of state tax dollars in the future." Sounds like she
wants to save state money, not spend it. Wish the reporter had asked her how her
program would save state money.
Let's do some math. The Speaker wants to spend $35 million out of our own
pockets. We would give up the right to receive over $500 million, a net loss of
over $535 million, and not taking it won't lower our taxes one bit. I want
to learn more about the Gov's plan, but it still comes up short and leaves
a lot of money on the table that we could get. Financially, the GOP
doesn't seem very smart to me.
I don't know about the rest of the readers but I for one am fed up with the
lazy neer do well, non achievers sitting around in their wheel chairs with their
hands out waiting for a little help so they might be able to start their Chemo
treatments before it is to late! As the previous poster CDL explains they "
are unwilling to put in the work and sacrifice to do better themselves" and
DN Subscriber explains " The second is the crippling and demeaning notion
that it is the responsibility of taxpayers to provide healthcare to anyone other
than those who have contractually earned it". It should be everyone for
himself! If you're down, to bad for you, hurray for me! I could go on but
I still have a talk to prepare for church tomorrow on Compassion and love! I
hear each day on the Radio, our Governor giving the PR state Promo "Life
Elevated Utah". Just who are the selected group that "Life elevated in
Utah" is for?
Frankly, I don't see a need or advantage in doing it "the Utah
way". Why don't we just do it the Federal way. Our Federal taxes are
paying for it. Medicare and Medicaid have way lower administrative costs with a
higher percentage of the money going for medical treatment then do private
profit making insurance companies.
The Governor's plan - take a grant from the Feds of $350 million (half of
the total grant), already offered as a refund to the people of Utah to help
those BELOW the poverty line left out of Obamacare.The
Speaker's plan - reject Utah's refund to make a statement in
Washington (actually subsidizing other states) and SPENDING an ADDITIONAL $35
million collected from Utah tax payers to hardly make a dent to help those below
the poverty level.I don't need to say more.
Call2Action "Obamacare is a disaster like all the liberal ideas forced on us
by liberals, whether a D or an R is next to their name."Right.
Obamacare created this horrible doughnut hole that hurts the very poor. But, the Federal funded Medicaid expansion is a band-aid to fix one of
the biggest problems with Obamacare. So, why is the speaker rejecting the fix?
Insurance is not always insurance. Obamacare Bronze plan for those
just over the poverty line has such a high deductible that people at that level
can't use it. Yet, the insurance companies are taking the check from the
Feds - lost money for the tax payer. On the other hand, the
government offers grants to insurance companies that can provide superior
Medicare service for less money, called Medicare Advantage - money saving for
the tax payer.The problem with the Governor's plan is just
giving the money to private insurance may cause the same problem as Obamacare
Bronze plan.The best solution is to expand Medicaid like Medicare
Advantage; expand the Medicaid as Feds propose (quickly...time is ticking) AND
offer to grant insurance plans that offer more service for less money. The best of both worlds, by creating competition.