ObamaCare in Pa.
Gov. Corbett's decision regarding ObamaCare — keeping Pennsylvania in the system — is terrible.
Our state has a high proportion of poor and seniors who will be forced on to Medicaid rolls in the near future due to ObamaCare. Pennsylvania simply will not have the funds to pay for this.
While thousands are retiring each day, ObamaCare reduces Medicare spending tremendously. The result will be increasing Medicare premiums to the point where they are no longer affordable by the average user. Therefore, a tremendous number of retirees will be forced into Medicaid for their coverage.
This will occur only after seniors are forced into poverty because they'll use up their assets to qualify for Medicaid. And since some states will opt out of the Medicaid provision, hundreds of thousands of retirees will look for states that do offer this alternative. Imagine a tripling of the number of people in our Medicaid system. Pennsylvania cannot now — nor in the future — support this.
Corbett also ignores the current political situation, giving President Obama a victory of sorts in Pennsylvania. I can see a headline, “Corbett backs off Obama-Care, now agrees with president.” Mitt Rom- ney and the Republican U.S. Senate candidate, Tom Smith, can't use this issue in the same way they could have if Corbett had taken Pennsylvania out of the system.
People are very upset and I mean passionately upset. Can this bode well for the GOP's chances in November?
The writer is chairman of the Berks County Tea Party and state coordinator of the Tea Party Patriots.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.