Quantcast

Letter: Legislator says poor better off with no health care

Published December 3, 2013 11:46 am

This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2013, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Utah Republicans never cease to amaze. When faced with a golden opportunity to help well over 100,000 of the poorest of their citizens (with the Medicaid expansion), through no cost to the state and likely a great economic boon by returning tens of millions of tax dollars to the state, what do they do? ("Utah Legislative panel rejects full Medicaid expansion," Tribune, Nov. 21)

Well, of course they appoint a commission to study this difficult issue. And of course, they place in charge of said commission a legislator with a vested interest in directing as many people as possible to private insurance.

And how do they justify this tomfoolery? With pretzel logic, like the statement from Rep. Jim Dunnigan that the poor will be better off not having any aid at all rather than being exposed to "diminishing number of doctors who accept Medicaid"? Huh? Better to have no medical care rather than a diminished supply?

John E. Zimmerman

Salt Lake City