No headline

I am responding to Jeremy Conlin’s letter (Oct. 11, 2018, Daily Bee) advocating against Proposition 2. Unfortunately I could not find any factual references to claims referred to in idahofreedom.org. To argue that the proposition is primarily to feed the pockets of health care workers or organizations, because some of the money came from them is quite disturbing to me. Wouldn’t you want to pay your doctor or nurse for their health care services? Wouldn’t you want them to speak up for your health care needs if you were in poor health and couldn’t afford care?

According to data from the 2015 National Health Interview Survey, “only 13 percent of adults covered by Medicaid expansion were able–bodied and not working, in school, or seeking work … three-fourths of those report not working in order to care for family members and the rest report other reasons, like being laid off.” As a result of Medicaid expansion “52.1 percent of enrollees stated attaining coverage made it easier to secure and maintain employment, with that number increasing to 74.8 percent for those currently unemployed.” (1)

I am part of a group of bipartisan women who meet monthly on the basis of principles outlined at livingroomconversations.com. We came together with the purpose to find viable bipartisan solutions for problems that are dear to all of us — like the health of our family, friends, and patients. We found that repeating unfounded statements from biased publications like Idaho Freedom just widens the political divide and prevents solutions. As a practicing naturopathic doctor I have seen working or “serving” people who fall through the gap avoiding necessary testing and treatments. Let’s look at Proposition 2 as a viable bipartisan solution to the health of our nation rather than a partisan perspective fight.

(1) https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2017/01/10/the-return-on-investment-of-medicaid-expansion-supporting-work-and-health-in-rural-ohio/

GABRIELLE DUEBENDORFER, N.D.

Sandpoint