Hi 44° | Lo 23°

Letter: Troubling report on Medicaid expansion

Re “Many back Medicaid expansion” (Monitor front page, Aug. 28):

I found this article troubling in several respects. It seems that most or many of those speaking for Medicaid expansion are in the medical field, either as doctors or medical service providers. What bothers me is that these, it seems, are the very people who will benefit financially from this expansion. If this is so, their comments should be taken with a grain of salt.

I am also troubled by the class that will be covered: “138 percent of the poverty line.” How was such a strange figure determined? I hope it wasn’t political!

Lastly, I am troubled by the federal government’s promise of 100 percent payment for three years and 90 percent starting in 2016. I say troubled because we have seen that government, federal, state and local, has had a reputation of making these promises and then failing to fund them with the expense falling on those who agreed to these promises.

This makes me hope that if New Hampshire does accept this program it will be for only three years, and with the further provision that it is specifically contingent on the 100 percent federal payment of it – and further that if at any time the federal government stops or reduces its payment the program will stop or be reduced accordingly. After the three years we could be into an entirely different Congress and could decide then whether to continue or not.



Legacy Comments6

Freedom & Liberty are a result of LESS govt - NOT MORE govt.

I'm curious who you suggest we listen to. Politicians? No thanks. Health insurance CEOs and lobbyists? No thanks again. I am running out of ideas.

Frank, your instincts are good. It is political. Democrats need a dependent class in order to maintain power.

But that makes no sense. People who are sick can't work. People who are sick can't go to school. Health is a step to independence, not dependence. I want to think that Democrats and Republicans both want what is best for our country, they just disagree on how to get there. I'm beginning to think I was foolishly naive. You seem to see the world through the lens of power and control, not how to create a social environment wherein people can make the most of their lives and improve their situations for the benefit of themselves and their families. How sad.

It's political???? What kind of answer is that? For someone so quick with anecdotal answers, let's hear your solution. By expanding medicare you are only reducing the numbers that draw on "free care" in emergency rooms. We already pay for that by inflated rates to cover this free service. If people had the means to receive preventive care the need for more serious (re: expensive) care could be avoided. I don't know about you, but I have regular checkups that found issues if left unattended would have become serious and expensive. I don't like taxes anymore than the next guy, but I like them more than the idea of having to swipe a credit/debit card before you could receive care. Not looking forward to living in "The Land of the Free and the Home of Those Who Can Afford it."

Sure, some people in the healthcare field may benefit financially from the proposed Medicaid expansion, but I don't see that as a reason for dismissing their recommendations. I know many folks who have devoted their lives to the practice of medicine and nursing, and they share both a strong desire to help people to avoid illness, and to help when people have become ill. They have seen first-hand how the lack of available healthcare results in more people suffering from preventable illnesses, as well as illnesses that could have been less severe - and accordingly, less expensive to treat - had they been treated earlier, but were not because affordable care was not available. It seems to me that medical professionals have unique experiences that make them especially qualified to comment on this issue.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.