Two years ago, one of the opening volleys of Gov. Tom Corbett's administration was elimination of AdultBasic, a respectable, 9-year-old program that provided health insurance for more than 40,000 working Pennsylvanians.
I strongly opposed Corbett's decision, noting at the time that it was “going to be devastating” and would actually drive up costs as more people were forced to use hospital emergency rooms as a primary source of medical care.
AdultBasic was not a freebie or a handout: It required a $36-per-month participant contribution, with the remainder of program costs funded through Pennsylvania's portion of tobacco company settlements. The program filled a big coverage gap by providing affordable health care to those earning too much to qualify for Medicaid — but not yet old enough to qualify for Medicare.
When Corbett and his compliant Republican majorities in the state House and Senate summarily ended AdultBasic, 500,000 Pennsylvanians were on its waiting list.
According to the state Insurance Department, 40 percent of the folks who lost AdultBasic enrolled in Blue Cross/Blue Shield plans that were more costly to them, while 4 percent obtained insurance through Medicaid. No one knows what happened to the remaining 56 percent.
As to the argument that Pennsylvania lacks a mechanism for refunding AdultBasic, a recent Commonwealth Court ruling held that tobacco settlement funds must go to providing health care for low-income people.
I call upon the governor to reinstate AdultBasic — a program that works and that helps people work — because it represents legal, moral and economically sound governance.
The writer is a Democrat member of the state House representing portions of Westmoreland and Fayette counties.
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.
- Pedro must go
- Steel at stake, too
- Duty to disclose
- Oberdorf firing
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- ‘Coyote Capitalism’