OPINION: Medicaid expansion is exception to the rule
In fact, when lives are at stake, lawmakers show a remarkable ability to make
rational, humane choices.
Take immunizations, for instance. About 70.2 percent of kids ages 19 months to 35 months have been vaccinated, a sliver behind the national average of 70.4 percent and the 25th best rate among the 50 states and the
Not bad, but certainly this is no time to back away from the public health commitment -- especially with reports of measles outbreaks.
So lawmakers had no problem extending for another two years a program that spends federal dollars to provide vaccinations to children without health insurance. The same bill continues the practice of allowing the health care community to purchase vaccines in bulk to help keep prices in check.
At the same time, lawmakers set aside their traditional distrust of government intrusion into personal privacy by allowing health care providers to access a registry of vaccination records.
All in the name of saving lives.
How about the war on drugs?
After
Then they confronted the plight of children suffering from Dravet Syndrome, an ailment that causes severe, debilitating seizures. Pleas from anguished parents looking for any hope led
A majority in each chamber approved the use of oil extracted from hemp which was high in cannabidiol, which alleviates seizures, but low in THC, which gets people high. They did so over the objections of police, prosecutors and Gov.
Again, lawmakers acted to end human suffering.
Then came the sharpest diversion from conservative orthodoxy when Republicans pushed through more than
Public safety helped motivate at least some of them to pass the bill.
In 2013, 213 Idahoans were killed in traffic fatalities. It translates into an estimated economic loss of
Assume for the sake of argument those highway improvements lower fatalities by 10 percent. You'd save 22 lives and about
For most lawmakers, raising taxes to save lives was an easy choice to make.
Yet lawmakers went home forfeiting a chance not only to save more lives but also to lower -- not increase -- taxes while the giving the state economy a real shot in the arm.
Under Obamacare, 78,000 working
Initially, the feds would cover 100 percent of the cost but never less than 90 percent.
Whatever the state's share comes to, it's far less than covering the entire cost of county and state programs that pay the medical bills of those deemed medically indigent.
Last year, those bills totalled
On top of that,
Most importantly, it would provide people suffering from chronic illnesses with ongoing, preventive care. Based on the experience of Romneycare in
Last year, Otter's
Said
No to Obamacare.
No to helping taxpayers.
No to taking federal money.
No to saving lives.
When you're in the throes of Obama Derangement Syndrome, who cares about being consistent? -- M.T.
___
(c)2015 the Lewiston Tribune (Lewiston, Idaho)
Visit the Lewiston Tribune (Lewiston, Idaho) at www.lmtribune.com
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Medicare releases data on drug spending
Advisor News
Annuity News
Health/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News