Opinion: Letter

Osborne wrong on BadgerCare Plus

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Related stories:

• BadgerCare Plus Core Plan was lacking in positives (October 8, 2009)
• Stop fearing socialized health care (September 28, 2007)
• Voting policies essential (March 22, 2009)
• Focus on mental health fix (March 4, 2008)
• 2 + 2 = 5 (November 29, 2001)

Also by Letters to the Editor:

• Defending Teach For America (November 17, 2009)
• BH SLAC-ing on coverage (November 16, 2009)
• UW and dead-end diversity (November 13, 2009)
• Stop singing immigrant's song (November 11, 2009)
• Blind acceptance of global warming bad (November 4, 2009)

Sharing tools:

E-mail this article:

Your e-mail address:

Recipient e-mail address:

Optional message:

Share on:

• Facebook
• Digg
• Newsvine
• reddit
• StumbleUpon
• delicious
• Google
• Yahoo! My Web
• BlogMarks
• Linkroll
• Simpy

• Spurl
• Connotea
• Fark
• Feed Me Links

• Magnolia
• BlinkList
• Sphere
• LinkedIn

• Furl
• Technorati
• AddToAny
• Permalink

Given the recent economic downturn, the intersection of personal and political has become ever more obvious. So I react with both wonk-like excitement and anxious frustration to The Badger Herald’s recent coverage of the enrollment cap on the BadgerCare Plus Core Plan.

I am pleased to see the Herald tackle these issues, but the policy nerd in me wants to make a few corrections. Emily Osbourne’s recent column (“BadgerCare Plus Core Plan was lacking in positives,” Oct. 8), criticizing the state government on its poor planning, was off base. In truth, like all Medicaid programs, BC+ is funded jointly by state and federal funds. The federal government, by agreeing to partially fund the BC+ Core Plan, put a budget cap of $154 million for the first year of the program, a fact pointed out in previous coverage of BC+ in the Herald. So the need to cap enrollment lies at the feet of the federal government, not Gov. Doyle and the state Legislature.

The popularity of the program highlights the lack of affordable coverage available to most Americans. As I face graduation in May, I know that my peers and I face difficult odds for finding insurance. 22- to 30-year-olds in this country are becoming uninsured at the fastest rate of any age demographic. Republican or Democrat, Coastie or Sconnie, Lakeshore or Southeast, we don’t spend all our time at Helen C. to face an uninsured future. We as students need to contact our representatives (www.house.gov/writerep) and voice our opinions. If the U.S. Congress wishes to cap the high-quality state programs available to us, then quality reform must follow.

Maura Foley
Senior, biology and sociology
WISPIRG visibility chair
Mfoley2@wisc.edu