There’s another turn in a story we’ve all been following for over a decade, so I wrote it up at New York:
The Affordable Care Act was signed into law 13 years ago, and the Medicaid expansion that was central to the law still hasn’t been implemented in all 50 states. But we are seeing steady, if extremely slow, progress in the effort to give people who can’t afford private insurance but don’t qualify for traditional Medicaid access to crucial health services. The U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the ACA also made Medicaid expansion optional for states. Twenty-four states accepted the expansion when it became fully available at the beginning of 2014, and that number has steadily expanded, with the most recent burst of forward momentum coming from ballot initiatives in red states like Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Utah. Now a 40th state is in the process of climbing on board: North Carolina. As the Associated Press reports, legislation is finally headed toward the desk of Governor Roy Cooper:
“A Medicaid expansion deal in North Carolina received final legislative approval on Thursday, capping a decade of debate over whether the closely politically divided state should accept the federal government’s coverage for hundreds of thousands of low-income adults. …
“When Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, a longtime expansion advocate, signs the bill, it should leave 10 states in the U.S. that haven’t adopted expansion. North Carolina has 2.9 million enrollees in traditional Medicaid coverage. Advocates have estimated that expansion could help 600,000 adults.”
So what changed? Basically, over time the fiscal arguments North Carolina Republicans used to oppose the expansion began sounding increasingly ridiculous, AP suggests:
“GOP legislators passed a law in 2013 specifically preventing a governor’s administration from seeking expansion without express approval by the General Assembly. But interest in expansion grew over the past year as lawmakers concluded that Congress was neither likely to repeal the law nor raise the low 10% state match that coverage requires.
“A financial sweetener contained in a COVID-19 recovery law means North Carolina also would get an estimated extra $1.75 billion in cash over two years if it expands Medicaid. Legislators hope to use much of that money on mental health services.”
In other words, the GOP Cassandras warning that the wily Democrats would cut funding for the expansion in Congress once states were hooked turned out to be absolutely wrong. Indeed, the very sweet deal offered in the original legislation got even sweeter thanks to the above-mentioned COVID legislation. States like North Carolina appeared to be leaving very good money on the table for no apparent reason other than partisanship, seasoned with some conservative hostility toward potential beneficiaries. In this case, GOP legislators finally reversed course without much excuse-making. The AP reports:
“A turning point came last May when Senate leader Phil Berger, a longtime expansion opponent, publicly explained his reversal, which was based largely on fiscal terms.
“In a news conference, Berger also described the situation faced by a single mother who didn’t make enough money to cover insurance for both her and her children, which he said meant that she would either end up in the emergency room or not get care. Expansion covers people who make too much money for conventional Medicaid but not enough to benefit from heavily subsidized private insurance.
“’We need coverage in North Carolina for the working poor,’ Berger said at the time.”
That, of course, has been true all along. Final legislative approval of the expansion was delayed for a while due to an unrelated dispute over health-facility regulations. And the expansion cannot proceed until a state budget is passed. But it’s finally looking good for Medicaid expansion in a place where Democrats and Republicans are bitterly at odds on a wide range of issues.
There remain ten states that have not yet expanded Medicaid; eight are Republican “trifecta” states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming) and two others have Republican-controlled legislatures (Kansas and Wisconsin). Perhaps the peculiar mix of stupidity and malice that keeps state lawmakers from using the money made available to them by Washington to help their own people will abate elsewhere soon.
I know both campaigns are dirty and spin whatever they do- but my intent was not to bash liberals; solely the author, a Democrat. My post was solely to show that her comment was not hypocritical and to show there are multiple sides to this argument. Let us both agree that US politics could use a Change that neither politician elected can truly bring.
“Why do Democrats waste their time trying to get an edge on every single thing that comes out of an opponent’s mouth?”
You have to be kidding? Do you not pay attention to the McCain campaign? They have been the masters at out of context comments, not to mention out of context votes, passed bills, etc… Lipstick on a pig? Whaaa waaa waaa, Disrespectful! Excessive use of powers as a governor? Boo hoo hoo, Sexists!
Even though I’m for state rights neither party seems to support that. Republicans can’t pick and choose which rights they get to choose.
Why do Democrats waste their time trying to get an edge on every single thing that comes out of an opponent’s mouth? This is a perfectly legitimate argument by Palin. I can see there IS an inherent right to privacy. The government has no right spying on what we do with our lives, what we watch, where we get or information from, etc.
HOWEVER, this doesn’t go against the belief that abortion is wrong and should be outlawed. The topic has about 50% of Americans supporting it as a “mother’s choice” and the other 50% are for saving an unborn baby! Murdering would obviously NOT be protected under the Constitution. It is a giant opinion: religion vs. science, property, life & death, etc. It’s a bundle of opinions that cross many boundaries with many pros and cons depending on how you look at it (god forbid you look with a perspective not of a staunch democrat).
Finally, HOW DARE SHE let the PEOPLE of the STATE decide on a LAW! OUTLANDISH… Oh, wait. THAT IS WHAT DEMOCRACY SHOULD BE! Much like the Constitution, this topic is not clear cut: it doesn’t just fall into the privacy clause. I think Palin handled herself quite well: She passed the judgment to the states. The government should allow privacy and butt out of a decision that states should make.
PS. Ed you are Male, if I am (hopefully) correct. You will have no baby so I suggest you let the women deal with this topic because it is far above you.