Personally, I see the governor as fulfilling the voters’ mandate to provide Medicaid coverage to eligible poor residents. That mandate was over-ridden two years ago by the legislature which dropped poor, childless adults from Medicaid coverage due to recession budget constraints.
From its pre-statehood territorial days, Arizona had a safety net to provide healthcare to the poor. It was law that counties had that financial responsibility. Arizona was the last state to start participating in Medicaid, starting in 1982.
Poor childless adults were excluded from the state’s Medicaid program until about ten years ago, so the county “safety net” continued to provide and pay for care provided to poor childless adults. However, voters then approved two propositions to cover poor childless adults under Medicaid, and county financial responsibility for their care was eliminated with a resulting change in the law.
Two or three years ago, faced with serious budget deficits, the state essentially dropped coverage for poor childless adults despite the earlier voter approved Medicaid for them. For the first time in generations, those people had no fall back coverage if they became uninsured.
All of the above had nothing to do with “Obamacare.” A couple hundred thousand poor we’re dropped for two years from the state’s Medicaid program despite earlier voter approval for their inclusion.
It has been a disaster for the poor with illness these past two years. The governor recognizes this and wants to restore the earlier program. The earlier program made people eligible for treatment if their income were below 100% of the federal poverty level, and that is the level that the governor wanted to restore.
Where ObamaCare comes into this picture is that it requires setting the income eligibility level at 138% of the federal poverty level instead of 100%. It is 138% or nothing, which sucks.
Arizona taxpayers will continue to pay for Medicaid services in the other states and must decide whether it will also receive the Medicaid funded services locally for poor childless adults - or - will instead pay twice by also paying higher private insurance rates (a tax on the insured) to make up the losses from doctors and hospitals as a result of no Medicaid for poor childless adults.
The governor’s goal was to restore Medicaid for the poor, as directed previously by voters. Obamacare then required that more people be included - the difference between 100% and 138% of the Federal poverty level.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Good synopsis! Thank you!
—thank you for that explanation; she is in a unique position as well being a “border” state and does not strike me as the type of person to just ‘go-along’ with OBC...
“Two or three years ago, faced with serious budget deficits,”
“All of the above had nothing to do with “Obamacare.” A couple hundred thousand poor we’re dropped for two years from the state’s Medicaid program despite earlier voter approval for their inclusion.”
Sounds like a perfect setup. This way the tards get
Obamacare and Brewer saves face. Either way she caved to
the commietards and is now one of their pawns just
like Christi. Obamas evil is strong. She’ll sell out
Arpaio next because another liberal foothold has been
established in Arizona.
Thank you for the clear explanation. This is what FR is all about: as your name implies...getting the truth!
Sounds like she did the right thing according to how the citizens had already voted.
The sick and poor need to be weeded out...if the immediate family, or its community can’t solve the problem...why should a stranger to the situation be forced to pick up the tab?
Make it the family’s project or the community via a church...ABOLISH all the government employers and employees that are needed to support the sick and poor parasites...
Politicians by tradition “triangulate” and play the “moderate’ to insure their re-election.
Bill Clinton was willing to go part of the way with Newt Gingrich in 1995 on his way to re-election in 1996.
That meant signing “welfare reform” legislation and the Defense of Marriage Act.
Jan Brewer thinks the right thing to do politically is to expand Medicaid.
You defend Brewer’s actions but many find it hard to support them because while you see a leader following the will of those who elected her I see a calculating politician just like I saw in Bill Clinton back in 1995.
Where do we end up at the end of the day when the politics of “the possible” or “triangulation” is used by our elected officials?
We end up further in the direction of bigger government, less freedom and a totalitarian state at this point in our nations history.
Chris Christie is playing this game big time now for his re-election along with Marco Rubio on immigration and so on........
I find it all thoroughly disgusting and I am reflecting on what the alternative is.
Maybe its some sort of resistance because it appears from history that movements involving resistance have the potential to change things to go the way you want them to go.
Politics as usual is moving this country in the wrong direction that’s for sure.
So what you’re saying is that she is a good leader because, in order to compensate for the economic drain that criminals have put on her state’s budget, she is going to take more money from honest, tax-paying citizens?
What a great leader.