This morning's editorial from the Hannibal Courier-Post, which argues against the Governor's health care proposal, is really fascinating:
The governor has proposed using $52 million from hospitals that would then attract $93 million in federal funds. The hospitals would pay an additional $22.1 million in taxes and forgo $30.7 million that the facilities normally would get from the state to partially reimburse them for the costs of treating uninsured patients, according to the Department of Social Services.
House Republicans have questioned the wisdom of expanding welfare programs during a recession. We find ourself [sic] in agreement.
Expanding those social programs utilizing what is likely one-time stimulus dollars is risky. What happens once those dollars are spent? We fear that Missouri would be in a position of having push people out of those programs. We applaud the governor’s desire to extend Medicaid coverage. However, we need to make certain that a consistent revenue source is available so the extended coverage is not provided on a short-term basis.
In the final paragraph, the C-P writes that "we need to make certain that a consistent revenue source is available" before supporting the plan.
But as the exact same editorial notes -- just sentences earlier -- there is a consistent revenue source for the program: the hospitals that volunteered to make the deal possible.
This isn't "one-time stimulus" money at all. The state doesn't pay any extra money to make this happen. Why in the world wouldn't we help struggling families -- especially in a recession -- when presented with a win-win situation?