GOP's 'no' to Medicaid becomes 'Let's make a deal'
By The Associated Press
Published: Sunday, March 24, 2013, 6:15 p.m.
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Given the choice of whether to expand Medicaid under President Obama's health care law, many Republican governors and lawmakers initially responded with an emphatic “no.”
Now they are increasingly hedging their objections.
A new “no, but ...” approach is spreading among GOP states in which officials are still publicly condemning the Democratic president's Medicaid expansion yet floating alternatives that could provide health coverage to millions of low-income adults while potentially tapping into billions of federal dollars that are to start flowing in 2014.
The Medicaid health care program for the poor, which is jointly funded by the federal and state governments, covers about one in five people in America. Expanding it was the way Obama envisioned covering many more low-income workers who don't have insurance. The new Republican alternatives being proposed in states generally would go part of the way but cover fewer people than Obama's plan, guarantee less financial help or rely more on private insurers.
But so far, many of the Republican ideas are still more wistful than substantive. It's uncertain whether they will pass. And even if they do, there's no guarantee Obama's administration will allow states to deviate too greatly from the parameters of the Affordable Care Act while still reaping its lucrative funding. Yet a recent signal from federal officials that Arkansas might be able to use Medicaid money to buy private insurance policies has encouraged Republicans to try alternatives.
The GOP proposals could lead to another health care showdown between the White House and states, leaving millions of Americans who lack insurance waiting longer for resolution. Officials in about 30 states that are home to more than 25 million uninsured residents remain either defiant or undecided about implementing Obama's Medicaid expansion, according to an Associated Press survey.
Supporters of the Medicaid expansion have built coalitions of hospitals, business groups, religious leaders and advocates for the poor to try to persuade reluctant Republicans of the economic and moral merits of Obama's health care plan. But some Republicans believe the pressure ultimately will fall on Obama to accept their alternatives if he wants to avoid a patchwork system for his signature accomplishment.
“If the Obama administration is serious about innovative ways to bring down the cost of health care, it's going to cooperate with conservative ideas rather than continue down its one-size-fits-all, far-left-wing ideological path,” said Missouri Rep. Jay Barnes, a Republican from Jefferson City.
A House committee led by Barnes has defeated Obama's version of Medicaid expansion. It is to hear public testimony on Monday on his “market-based Medicaid” alternative, which would award health care contracts to competing private insurers and provide cash incentives to patients who hold down their health-care costs.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Deal reached in Ukraine crisis talks, but U.S. remains wary of Russia’s end game
- Imam’s influence detailed as NYC terror trial begins
- Oregon reservoir to be flushed because of urinating teen
- Husband accused in slaying ate pot candy, police say
- Scientists achieve cloning advance for use in treating diseases
- National Portrait Gallery features abstract expressionism of familiar faces
- Another arrest made in abduction of N.C. prosecutor’s father
- Reid calls Nevada rancher’s supporters ‘terrorists’ over armed confrontation
- Obamacare estimates beaten by 1M
- Clinton donor pleads guilty in illegal campaign contributions
- GAO finds just 1 percent of large partnerships audited by IRS