ShareThis Page
Editorial: Pennsylvania health exchange mousetrap | TribLIVE.com
Editorials

Editorial: Pennsylvania health exchange mousetrap

1266928_web1_Ptr-MedicaidFunding-030719
The Pennsylvania State Capitol on Nov. 19, 2015 seen from State St. in Harrisburg. The Capitol’s centerpiece is a 272-foot tall dome.

Everyone wants to build a better health care mousetrap.

It’s a hot topic on the campaign trail. It’s a top concern for voters. In Pittsburgh, all eyes are on the UPMC-Highmark battle royale. People want to know how to stay healthy, how to get healthy and who is going to pay for it.

And now Pennsylvania wants to be more involved.

Scared?

Actually, Pennsylvania wants to save money by taking over the online health insurance exchange the federal government has been running for five years.

Really scared?

Maybe that’s not fair. Maybe it will work out just fine. After all, it’s not just Gov. Tom Wolf’s idea. The legislation introduced Tuesday in the state House of Representatives has sponsorship from Republican and Democratic floor leaders.

It’s got bipartisanship. It’s got cost savings. It’s got health insurance. Is it possible it has everything?

What it also has is an air of familiarity. Haven’t we heard this song before?

The state is happy to help you get from here to there. But if you take the turnpike, they’re also happy to hike how much that costs every year and divert the funds to pay for things that have nothing to do with the toll roads. Definitely no cost savings there.

Fill up your gas tank, and the state is there, too, with the nation’s highest surcharge. Just don’t count on all that gas tax going to pay for the road. For some reason, part of it pays for the state police coverage in communities that have opted not to have local cops.

The state pension system hasn’t exactly been an affordable proposition. Pennsylvania has some of the highest college tuition in the country. The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board stands between consumers and a simple bottle of booze that other states let you pick up like a loaf of bread.

Let’s face it, “affordable” and “efficient” aren’t exactly synonymous with Keystone State government.

It’s hard to believe that the state’s projection — that it would cost just $30 million to $35 million to run the exchange that costs the feds $94 million.

And that $60 million or so savings could go to reimburse insurers for high-dollar claims, something other states have done, but Pennsylvania would be the first to fund it this way.

That’s what’s really scary. The state’s propositions often sound good, like better but convoluted mousetraps.

The problem is they seldom catch mice but always catch money.

Categories: Opinion | Editorials
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.