The Corbett plan: Fraught with peril.
In the end, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett's proposed needle-threading alternative to ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion serves up a distinction without much of a difference. And he's sure to pay a political price on both sides.
To his credit, Mr. Corbett resisted Medicaid expansion, another in a long line of federal pigs in a poke. And his solution — still accepting federal dollars, not for Medicaid, but to allow the poor to buy private insurance through ObamaCare's dubious insurance exchanges — does introduce commonsense reforms such as its work and co-pay requirements.
But it remains fraught with taxpayer peril.
“Whether new patients are being insured through traditional Medicaid plans or new taxpayer-subsidized health insurance exchanges, the taxpayers still are footing the bill for unsustainable government programs,” says Matthew Brouillette, president of the Commonwealth Foundation.
Corbett's plan will only further limit the poor's access to health care, the Harrisburg think tank concludes.
Republicans can't help but consider the proposal “a retreat from Corbett's decision not to accept the Medicaid expansion,” says Jake Haulk, president of the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy. State Democrats are calling the Corbett plan “a weak half-measure” that's nothing more than a “handout to insurance companies.”
Such issues, however, might be moot, given that the Obama administration must approve of Corbett's plan. Toploftical as it is, odds are it won't.
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.
Show commenting policy
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 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.
- Expanding Medicaid: Gov.-elect Wolf embraces a false premise
- The revolving door: Washington’s ‘gift’
- U.N. Watch: Another jaded ‘inquiry’
- Sunday pops
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- The Box
- The Eric Garner case: Blame the police state
- The Thursday wrap
- The Kane chronicles: Meaningless moves
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes