Yesterday, Governor Gary Herbert held a press conference to announce the details of the Healthy Utah plan. Gathered with him were local business and religious leaders (including Bishop David Wester of the Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake and Gary E. Stevenson, Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) showing their support. It's exciting to be at this point, with a workable plan in place, one which makes big compromises to fit the values of Utah's conservative majority while maintaining the core benefits and compassion of Medicaid expansion. In any part of the real world this would be hailed as a win-win situation on all sides. But this isnt the real world, it's politics. And that means some people aren't content to win unless they can see their opponents lose.
Members of Utah's legislature have unveiled their alternate proposals, which still include their visionary "do nothing" plan (in fairness, I am encouraged by the fact that incoming House Speaker Greg Hughes doesn't consider this an option, and House Majority Leader Jim Dunnigan has also indicated his belief that we can consider this off the table). I'm unable to make any logical sense out of the alternate proposals, which still involve taking back less of Utah's tax money and providing coverage to fewer Utahns in need. Again, in any real world scenario these options would be considered lose-lose, but here they serve the entirely ideological and impractical purpose of taking a stand against the federal government even though it hurts us. Nobody would be hailing those who had participated in the Boston Tea Party if they had thrown the Tea overboard then volunteered to pay for it. But that's essentially what is being proposed here.
For my part, I really don't care about winners or losers or egos or saving face or who gets credit or what message is sent. Healthy Utah is no ideological victory for an Obama supporter like me. When it turns out to be a huge success the very conservatives who have been blocking it will be the ones taking the credit because it comes from a Republican Governor in a red state. And it's no a personal feather in my cap, either. I'm just one of many cogs in the machine of people fighting for this. Within a month of Healthy Utah passing I predict not much of anybody outside of a few people I worked directly with will remember that Entitled to Life ever existed, and I'm more than fine with that. All I care about is that there are tens of thousands of Utahns who are just as good as anybody struggling to be healthy or stay alive, and every delay makes their situation worse. Talk of "taking the time to do this right" ignores common sense and medical science by pretending people won't get sicker the longer they don't have access to care, and that losing health or lives now won't impact generations to come. These other so-called plans are not effective, fiscally responsible or very helpful to people in need. Even those who would be eligible for ACA subsidies under the plans that only cover up to 100% of the poverty level can't afford the higher premiums and co-pays required. That's why the ACA didn't put them in that category to begin with. Figuring people on the edge will be fine is transparently short-sighted and trades the long term good of Utah and its people for short term ideological victory. It's a perfect example of the sort of "rationing" of which healthcare reform opponents seem to be so afraid.
But the contradictions get even more baffling: in the past Healthy Utah opponents have responded to suggestions that we take the money now and then cut off the program if it doesn't work out with cries that at that point we'd have a moral responsibility to these people (we don't have one now?) and can't do that. Now we're hearing some essentially propose doing this as a planned strategy, with the idea being that we take the 100% federal funding while it's there, then when it's time to scale back to a 90-10 scenario we cut off everybody over 100% of the poverty level. Wow. This idea may be the ultimate triumph of reducing the equation to merely being about money and completely ignoring that, lost in the rhetoric about taxes, are tens of thousands of Utahns who won't make it without our help.
READ THE FULL HEALTHY UTAH PLAN
CONTACT LEGISLATORS AND TELL THEM YOU SUPPORT HEALTHY UTAH, NOT AN ALTERNATIVE OR ALTERED PLAN
WATCH "ENTITLED TO LIFE" AND HEAR STORIES OF UTAHNS IN THE GAP
But the contradictions get even more baffling: in the past Healthy Utah opponents have responded to suggestions that we take the money now and then cut off the program if it doesn't work out with cries that at that point we'd have a moral responsibility to these people (we don't have one now?) and can't do that. Now we're hearing some essentially propose doing this as a planned strategy, with the idea being that we take the 100% federal funding while it's there, then when it's time to scale back to a 90-10 scenario we cut off everybody over 100% of the poverty level. Wow. This idea may be the ultimate triumph of reducing the equation to merely being about money and completely ignoring that, lost in the rhetoric about taxes, are tens of thousands of Utahns who won't make it without our help.
READ THE FULL HEALTHY UTAH PLAN
CONTACT LEGISLATORS AND TELL THEM YOU SUPPORT HEALTHY UTAH, NOT AN ALTERNATIVE OR ALTERED PLAN
WATCH "ENTITLED TO LIFE" AND HEAR STORIES OF UTAHNS IN THE GAP
No comments:
Post a Comment