The decision is 'trust fund' versus 'no more Medicaid' - and that shouldn't be a tough decision.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It's not health care reform to dump more money into Medicaid.
We all know there are problems with Obamacare, and Washington's implementation of it has been abysmal. But rejecting Medicaid won't fix any of those things.
In many cases, an expansion of Medicaid will not only drive taxpayer costs but will deliver lower-quality care than what they have today.
Medicaid is essentially bankrupt, Medicare is essentially bankrupt, why the heck would we give the federal government another entitlement program to manage?
Anybody that's asked, I've counseled that they not expand Medicaid eligibility. I've been critical of any expansion because you know what Washington does. It promises something for a finite period of time, and then it leaves you on the hook.
We cannot afford to lose the Medicaid funding for low-income women.
One thing governors feel, Democrats and Republicans alike, is that we have a health care system that, if you're on Medicaid, you have unlimited access to health care, at unlimited levels, at no cost. No wonder it's running away.
I am opposed to anybody making a decision for you or me or anybody else about what health care plan we should have.
I'm very, very concerned ultimately, as Medicaid costs increase in my state and most states, it's going to reduce funding for state aid to our public schools, to our higher education institution or higher taxes on the middle class that President Obama said he didn't want to do. And that's exactly where he's headed.
Ultimately, the decision to expand Medicaid is one of common sense and necessity; the facts make it clear that it is good for state economies, good for hospitals, and good for the people who need healthcare coverage.