Letter to the editor

Recently, an editorial declared a compromise should be sought by the incoming Montana legislature over Medicaid funding stating that during the previous 2013 session the “matter was tarried back claiming long term obligations for supporting the program were unknown.”  This measure certainly appeared to be a sound and responsible decision to me.  

Willing to work together should not equate to a willingness to spend millions of federal dollars to support the Medicaid “expansion” funding.  Replace the word federal dollars with taxpayer dollars and who is really paying these costs?  Several reasons for not advocating Medicaid expansion include: lawmakers have no reliable cost estimates; able-bodied childless adults have never been nor were ever intended to be eligible for taxpayer-funded Medicaid; private health care coverage would be crowded out; Medicaid expansion would jeopardize other significant Montana priorities; expanding Medicaid would unlikely reduce uncompensated charity care given by hospitals.  And finally, the likelihood of ever scaling back such a behemoth Medicaid program is slim to none.

Perhaps several Medicaid reforms will be introduced by the 2015 legislature to close the gap for the most vulnerable of her citizens: hard-working Montanans, low-income veterans, parents and the disabled, through innovative solutions that will encourage work and economic growth.

I would rather each of our legislators answer these questions before voting on any bill introduced:  Does the legislation being voted on increase or decrease dependency on government; the size or cost of government; the power of government?  Does the legislation increase or decrease individual responsibility; liberty and personal freedom; competition and free choice?  Does the legislation treat citizens as individuals or as members of groups? Is there true accountability?  Does a bill reflect justice or does it expound favoritism and wealth distribution?  And, finally, is the bill based on a true, Constitutional role of government?

Once these questions are weighed, there may be little need for compromise and statemanship would abound.

Kathleen Hassan – Trout Creek