So far we have Florida and South Carolina definitively saying they will opt out of the Medicaid expansion in the Affordable Care Act, and a few other Republican governors, like Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, close on their heels. This represents well over a million potential covered residents who would go without Medicaid coverage in the event that the states follow through on this threat. And because the coverage subsidies in the Affordable Care Act only start at the federal poverty line, everyone under 100% FPL will get stuck in the status quo, with no way to afford coverage and no way to get subsidies. They won’t have the added indignity of a mandate penalty because of the hardship exemptions. They will just have no hope of health insurance, and all the dangers that go along with that.
Kevin Drum calls this grandstanding. After the 2012 election, these governors will wise up. You’ll see.
It’s an easy way of ginning up the base, but it means nothing until 2014 rolls around the Medicaid provisions of ACA actually kick in. I don’t doubt that some states will continue to hold out, but if Obama wins in November and ACA stays intact, I expect things to cool down over time. Some of the ideologues will stick to their guns, but not all of them. Eventually most will probably take the money.
The fact that denying Medicaid “gins up the base” should tell you that this doesn’t necessarily play as a political wedge issue for Democrats. 2014 is an election year, too. But let me introduce Mr. Drum to son of the South Ed Kilgore, who understands the historical dynamic at work here:
I know, I know, it’s widely thought to be incontrovertible that logic, pressure from providers, and the sheer idiocy of states with stingy Medicaid programs turning down a massive redistribution of resources in their favor, will all convince Republican governors to go along with the Medicaid expansion after they kick and scream for the benefit of “the base.” Perhaps that’s true, and that the rhetoric is the latter-day equivalent of the “massive resistance” southern lawmakers pledged to wage against the federally-imposed demise of Jim Crow.
But as the civil rights precedent showed, the competitive pressure of demagoguery is sometimes a lot more powerful than the “business logic” of going along with a more rational course of action. Now that Scott and Jindal have thrown down the gauntlet, can Nikki Haley or Scott Walker or Rick Perry or Sam Brownback be far behind?
If anything, this smug liberal complacency about how hospital lobbyists will do their bidding and force Republican governors into compliance only guarantees further that this won’t happen, and that millions of low-income Americans will go without health coverage.
It could be that red-state governors are using the threat of opting out as a bargaining chip in future negotiations, perhaps to get a block grant conversation for Medicaid (which would be a regrettable policy) or some other concession. But my vote is on ideological opposition, boosted by lies about the full costs to states and a lot of demonization of those lazy people who want their health coverage paid for them.
Now, I do agree with Drum on one thing, and I’ve said it before: this is an excellent opportunity to make a full-court push for federalizing Medicaid. The benefits to smoothing out federal health care policy across the states would be great, and the increased bargaining power from removing the balkanized current framework should be able to drive down prices. Now there’s the additional benefit of delivering coverage to millions who may not otherwise be able to get it. Lamar Alexander floated the idea this year of trading federal education spending for federalizing Medicaid, and while that requires further study, it just might be worth it.
UPDATE: The definitive list on this comes from Think Progress. As I said on Saturday, coverage for over 9 million is threatened now.





5 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
The states that sued against PPACA have to pretend for a while that their lawsuit wasn’t political. But in fact the Florida suit didn’t argue that Medicaid shouldn’t be expanded. States are perpetually in budgetary crisis and refusing billions in free money is not an option.
And the south shall rise again!
Exactly.
Say goodbye to the big Sunbelt population boom. As times continue to remain tough in the red states even as they improve in the blue states, there’s going to be a great migration from the Sunbelt — which because of climate change is becoming a land of endemic drought and desert interrupted by the occasional cyclonic storm that trashes things and doesn’t soak nicely into the ground the way the moderate pre-climate-change rains did (the reason most of Florida and parts of Louisiana currently show up as drought-free is because they just had a tropical storm parked on top of them for a week).
The next few censuses ought to be very interesting.
“As times continue to remain tough in the red states even as they improve in the blue states, there’s going to be a great migration from the Sunbelt”
That’s sort of the plan. Just like Arizona figured its anti-immigrant restrictions would lead to “self-deportation” (and I doubt Arizona cared if immigrants left for Mexico or California), encouraging poor people to migrate to other states would mean, directly, less govt spending and, indirectly, fewer voters in favor of govt spending.
Lamar Alexander’s plan to swap Federal education and state Medicaid spending is actually a good idea (and unexpected coming from a former Secretary of Education). President Reagan proposed something along these lines in 1982 (Adjusted for GDP growth, $28B in 1982 is approx $130B today).
In his State of the Union address, Reagan proposed to nationalize health care financing for the poor, terminate the federal role in welfare, and return to the states forty-three major federal grant programs along with $28 billion federal dollars in excise taxes to pay for them.