For better health, pay Perry no mind". He/she briefly sets the scene then gets straight to the point. The editor is obviously displeased with the amount of uninsured individuals in the state of Texas. Almost 25% of our population (or 6 million people) ranks #1 in the nation in percentage of uninsured persons. Even though this policy would cost a mere 15.6 billion dollars over 10 years, the editor quotes that Tom Suehs (the state's health and human services commissioner) expected an expense more like 27 billion dollars. So, in the editors mind, this seems to be a no-brainer of a deal to implement.
Although the editor seems completely pro "Obamacare" (as it is referred to across the nation), he/she concedes an argument for the other view. The editor poses the question, is whether the cost of the plan is more significant than the cost that the plan will shift to those Texan taxpayers and those that are already insured. If those that are under this Obamacare choose to abuse the insurance plans and overuse emergency rooms for even minor medical needs, taxpayers in the area will feel the hurt in their wallet as the April 15th deadline draws nearer. Instead, the editor suggests that because these newly insured people (almost 2.3 million by 2023) would be more inclined to make regular doctors visits and thus stay away from expensive ER problems down the road.
From the wording of the article, I'm sure this one is written with the hopes that the 6 million pairs of eyes that aren't already insured stumble upon it. It has a sense of hope intertwined between the lines on the editorial. No doubt, this was the intention. While, I don't particularly agree with the critic's main thesis (that Perry was wrong to decline this plan), the writer does point out some major flaws. Texas does happen to have the highest percentage of uninsured individuals in the nation. In the editor's mind, this translates to "Texas would benefit the most from Obamacare."
While this author does voice his/her own opinion, it is a very credible article with substantial evidence pointing out the weaknesses in our state. There is a good concession to the other side of the argument which also establishes credibility. The editor concludes while "The Affordable Care Act isn't an elixir that will cure everything that ails American health care," this plan is a step in the right direction. While I can't argue with that, you won't find me at a rally supporting this particular movement.
That's the way Scott sees it