THE OPPOSITION, AND WHY THEY'RE WRONG

by Paul Gibbs

Lately we've seen  a number of op-eds and other pieces in both major local newspapers. Some of have been in support of Healthy Utah or any form of expansion, some have been against it. Obviously they make very different arguments. So how do we discern the differences? Consider these factors:


 SOURCES

The pro-expansion pieces come from a variety of sources which cross political, ideological and religious lines, and use data from sources such as Harvard Medical School, one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning on the planet (just to name one).

The anti-expansion pieces have come almost exclusively from current or former right-wing Utah legislators, and when they cite sources, most of them are connected to the Sutherland Institute, a highly partisan Utah "think tank", or The Foundation For Government Accountability, a similar Florida group. There is an enormous difference in credibility.

"THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IT WILL SAVE LIVES"

Sen. Mike Kennedy made this argument. That's where Harvard comes in, with a study which determines that 316 Utahns per year will die without expansion. That. my friends, is what we call "evidence", and from a credible source.


"LAZY PEOPLE"

The Governor's office has clearly demonstrated that the time-worn argument that these programs are a free ride for people who won't work is not true. Studies by the Governor's office conclude that 66% of the people in the coverage gap work but do not receive employer insurance.


"IT'S A TRAP"

In his Salt Lake Tribune op-ed, adamantly anti-expansion Senator Allen Christensen insists that Utah will be trapped into continuing after the three-year pilot program even if it doesn't work, citing the fact that the federal government has never canceled funding to an "entitlement" program. This argument is not only absurd, it's self-defeating. The entire reason we're still debating expansion is because forcing the states to accept expansion was deemed by the supreme court to be unconstitutional. The Governor's office is negotiating with the federal government to create rules by which both parties will have to abide, and if the deal is broken, Utah can opt out. But what if, as opponents keep asking, the federal government doesn't live up to its funding commitment? Well guys, as you said, the federal government has never canceled funding to an "entitlement" program.


"EMPLOYERS WILL DROP EMPLOYEES FROM COVERAGE AND FORCE THEM TO GO ON MEDICAID/HEALTHY UTAH"

First of all, one of the chief proponents of this notion, former Sen. Dan Liljenquist, has varied wildly in his numbers in his doomsday predictions, jumping from 40,000 to over 20,000 in matter of weeks without providing an explanation for the change.

Second, this simply hasn't happened in the states that have accepted expansion since the ACA took effect in 2012.

Third, the ACA itself protects against this with tax penalties against employers with 50 or more employees who offer health insurance yet have employees who enroll in Medicaid or equivalent assistance programs. Penalties of around $3,000 per employee. The argument just doesn't make sense.


Healthy Utah got a major boost in momentum in June, and opponents are throwing everything they have at it in desperation. But when it comes to credible arguments, they don't have much.