I know, suddenly it’s all health care all the time with me. But the Medicaid Expansion was completely off my radar, and I’m learning. It’s also suddenly more of a state issue than it was before the Supreme Court decision because the court made the expansion much less compulsory.
The Urban Institute has a helpful paper (pdf) on how failure to adopt the expansion would affect health care for people making 138% of the federal poverty level or less. The scheme of the health care reform bill pretty well assumed this expansion of the Medicaid system. So, in those states that opt out, there are some pretty dramatic holes. Apparently those at poverty level up to 138% might be eligible for some subsidies if the extension isn’t adopted. But people below the poverty level but not eligible for Medicaid under the current scheme are in bad shape.
They give some numbers for Indiana: 410,000 below the poverty line; 108,000 between the poverty line and 138% of the poverty line; 517,000 affected by the Medicaid expansion; 947,000 uninsured and 54.6% of the uninsured are potentially Medicaid eligible under the expansion.
Looks like Indiana is in or close to the “top 10” , or should I say “bottom 10” of states in each of these categories. Again. Just like all those other lists that rank states according to things like health, safety, education, access to services, you know all those “quality of life issues” that characterize places to live. I guess we have become so used to the cellar that it’s now the norm.
Furthermore, you simply can’t have a free society without guaranteed equal access to social wealth and resources; this includes health care.
I’m curious about what leads you to that conclusion – are you basing this assertion on logic, history, or just aesthetic preference?