Why are Republican state officials so against Medicaid expansion?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Medicaid is expensive and 49 States have balanced budget requirements. Yeah, the Feds paying for 90% of an expansion may seem like a great deal at first, but States will still eventually have to cover that 10%. And 10% can pretty big when reduced to an actual number.

But that 90% will flow into the state, paying people and business who pay state income and sales taxes. Plus it will cover a lot of sick people who would otherwise go to emergency rooms anyway.

Ignoring the morality of how it helps the working poor, taking the money makes sense financially, which is why some 'red states' are doing it. The reason not to is purely ideological and I suspect that after Obama is gone the 20 states that have refused the money will slowly but surely find ways to take it. Especially as it becomes clear that Obamacare is not going to go away, even if a GOPer is elected President.

We could debate long and hard about the morality of Medicaid.

How? seriously, how? One can argue efficiency, cost containment, alternatives, and reforms, but how does one argue the basic morality of a system for caring for the ill?

Oh wait, you're a Paultard, and by Ayn Randian "logic" it is the highest moral affrontery in life for those too poor to afford medical care to greedily leach off of life's natural winners.

Personal attacks by a liberal republican. Boy do I love it

1) NOT liberal
2) other than perhaps "paultard" (which i stand by fwiw), there was nothing "personal" whatsoever about my critique
3) your lack of a coherent response is telling.

Continuous attacks are a great way to continue.

What moral argument is this that there ostensibly is against Medicaid? Put up or shut up.

[Likely Voter]

This is a study conducted on behalf of the State of Kentucky by an outside consulting firm to determine the impact of the Medicaid expansion.

http://governor.ky.gov/healthierky/documents/medicaidexpansionwhitepaper.pdf

It's long and has lots of charts and graphs, but this is from the executive summary...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Essentially the costs of the state portion of the program was outweighed by the tax revenue and new jobs created and the savings to the general fund (due to reduction in the uninsured rate).

[Famous Mortimer]

Medicaid is expensive and 49 States have balanced budget requirements. Yeah, the Feds paying for 90% of an expansion may seem like a great deal at first, but States will still eventually have to cover that 10%. And 10% can pretty big when reduced to an actual number.

But that 90% will flow into the state, paying people and business who pay state income and sales taxes. Plus it will cover a lot of sick people who would otherwise go to emergency rooms anyway.

Ignoring the morality of how it helps the working poor, taking the money makes sense financially, which is why some 'red states' are doing it. The reason not to is purely ideological and I suspect that after Obama is gone the 20 states that have refused the money will slowly but surely find ways to take it. Especially as it becomes clear that Obamacare is not going to go away, even if a GOPer is elected President.

We could debate long and hard about the morality of Medicaid.

How? seriously, how? One can argue efficiency, cost containment, alternatives, and reforms, but how does one argue the basic morality of a system for caring for the ill?

Oh wait, you're a Paultard, and by Ayn Randian "logic" it is the highest moral affrontery in life for those too poor to afford medical care to greedily leach off of life's natural winners.

Personal attacks by a liberal republican. Boy do I love it

1) NOT liberal
2) other than perhaps "paultard" (which i stand by fwiw), there was nothing "personal" whatsoever about my critique
3) your lack of a coherent response is telling.

Continuous attacks are a great way to continue.

What moral argument is this that there ostensibly is against Medicaid? Put up or shut up.

I have already laid it out myself, although I don't agree with it. The argument is that taxes are an assault on "liberty" and protecting that liberty is more important than any services tax money could provide.

We've all been discussing politics for years. Why are we pretending not to know about boilerplate Republican ideology?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Medicaid is expensive and 49 States have balanced budget requirements. Yeah, the Feds paying for 90% of an expansion may seem like a great deal at first, but States will still eventually have to cover that 10%. And 10% can pretty big when reduced to an actual number.

But that 90% will flow into the state, paying people and business who pay state income and sales taxes. Plus it will cover a lot of sick people who would otherwise go to emergency rooms anyway.

Ignoring the morality of how it helps the working poor, taking the money makes sense financially, which is why some 'red states' are doing it. The reason not to is purely ideological and I suspect that after Obama is gone the 20 states that have refused the money will slowly but surely find ways to take it. Especially as it becomes clear that Obamacare is not going to go away, even if a GOPer is elected President.

We could debate long and hard about the morality of Medicaid.

How? seriously, how? One can argue efficiency, cost containment, alternatives, and reforms, but how does one argue the basic morality of a system for caring for the ill?

Oh wait, you're a Paultard, and by Ayn Randian "logic" it is the highest moral affrontery in life for those too poor to afford medical care to greedily leach off of life's natural winners.

Personal attacks by a liberal republican. Boy do I love it

1) NOT liberal
2) other than perhaps "paultard" (which i stand by fwiw), there was nothing "personal" whatsoever about my critique
3) your lack of a coherent response is telling.

Continuous attacks are a great way to continue.

What moral argument is this that there ostensibly is against Medicaid? Put up or shut up.

I'm not going to argue with someone that immediately assumes medicaid is moral.

So you've chosen against 'put up'. Got it.

[Likely Voter]

Alabama (you read that right) is thinking of expanding Medicaid
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/260050-alabama-governor-looking-at-obamacare-medicaid-expansion

[DC Al Fine]

Medicaid is expensive and 49 States have balanced budget requirements. Yeah, the Feds paying for 90% of an expansion may seem like a great deal at first, but States will still eventually have to cover that 10%. And 10% can pretty big when reduced to an actual number.

But that 90% will flow into the state, paying people and business who pay state income and sales taxes. Plus it will cover a lot of sick people who would otherwise go to emergency rooms anyway.

Ignoring the morality of how it helps the working poor, taking the money makes sense financially, which is why some 'red states' are doing it. The reason not to is purely ideological and I suspect that after Obama is gone the 20 states that have refused the money will slowly but surely find ways to take it. Especially as it becomes clear that Obamacare is not going to go away, even if a GOPer is elected President.

We could debate long and hard about the morality of Medicaid.

How? seriously, how? One can argue efficiency, cost containment, alternatives, and reforms, but how does one argue the basic morality of a system for caring for the ill?

Oh wait, you're a Paultard, and by Ayn Randian "logic" it is the highest moral affrontery in life for those too poor to afford medical care to greedily leach off of life's natural winners.

Personal attacks by a liberal republican. Boy do I love it

1) NOT liberal
2) other than perhaps "paultard" (which i stand by fwiw), there was nothing "personal" whatsoever about my critique
3) your lack of a coherent response is telling.

Continuous attacks are a great way to continue.

What moral argument is this that there ostensibly is against Medicaid? Put up or shut up.

To play devil's advocate, could you not take the same tact that liberals often do with social issues? "What you believe is all well and goo,d but it isn't the place of the state to enforce morality"

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

To play devil's advocate, could you not take the same tact that liberals often do with social issues? "What you believe is all well and goo,d but it isn't the place of the state to enforce morality"

I suppose you could, but that wouldn't make that line of argument any less lazy or dishonest than it is when social liberals default to it.

^^^^

The most prominent contemporary liberal political philosophers and jurists certainly wouldn't buy that argument; for these liberals "state neutrality" is important precisely because it is moral to allow individuals to pursue to their own notions of the good or the good life so long as they do so in a non-coercive/consensual manner. In a sense, liberalism, like all ideologies, is very bound up in morality; it just happens to propose that morality is a largely function of autonomous selves making their own decisions about these questions.

The point I'm trying to make is that libertarianism can't really be reconciled with liberalism because it fails to acknowledge that the exercise of autonomy is impeded rather than promoted by markets.

(I'm not a liberal but I think that contemporary liberalism is very misunderstood/misinterpreted. of course, it's only a relevant form of thought if you're a political science graduate student in the uk or the us so, who cares honestly)

[Zache]

It's an Obama policy and would kill their political dreams if they expanded it. That's basically the main reason, if Romney was in office and did the same thing, they would expand it Day 1.

Reps have no problem supporting Obamatrade though

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Because it's an Obama policy that was passed as part of Obamacare.  I doubt most of them would give two cents if it didn't have anything to do with either of them.