For holdouts in red states like Kansas, is Medicaid expansion within reach?

As Southern states reconsider Medicaid expansion, Gov. Laura Kelly of Kansas is pushing her own plan designed to please conservatives. So far, success has been elusive.
As lawmakers in a nearby courtroom debated last month whether to support his legislation aimed at to expand Medicaid, Gov. Laura Kelly of Kansas dared the state's Republican House Speaker to hold a vote.
"If he thinks that he can kill him, bring him on," Ms. Kelly, a soft-spoken moderate Democrat, said in an interview in her sprawling office at the state Capitol in Topeka.
The next morning, in his own office next to the House, Speaker Dan Hawkins showed no signs of giving in. . He described Medicaid expansion as “almost like the biggest Ponzi scheme ever.” The same day, a House committee voted against sending Ms. Kelly's bill, derailing the proposal — at least for now.
L he impasse between Ms. Kelly and Mr. Hawkins represented one fight in a bitter political battle playing out in several state capitols over the future of Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor. In Kansas and a handful of Republican-controlled Southern states, supporters of expanding the program under the Affordable Care Act have renewed efforts to overcome long-standing Republican opposition, generating a sense of progress.
Yet neither Ms. Kelly nor supporters of Medicaid expansion elsewhere have managed to advance the legislation far enough to become law, a reflection of the continued political power of conservative ideas about the nature of government-subsidized coverage and who deserves it.
“It’s really the fundamental moral question of where the safety net should be,” said Ty Masterson, Republican president of the Kansas Senate and longtime opponent expansion date. "And the safety net should be on the frail, the elderly, the disabled and all low-income mothers and children."
We are struggling to retrieve the content of the article.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode, please exit and log in to your Times account, or subscribe to the entire Times.

Health Apr 4, 2024 0 7 Add to Reading List

For holdouts in red states like Kansas, is Medicaid expansion within reach?

As Southern states reconsider Medicaid expansion, Gov. Laura Kelly of Kansas is pushing her own plan designed to please conservatives. So far, success has been elusive.

As lawmakers in a nearby courtroom debated last month whether to support his legislation aimed at to expand Medicaid, Gov. Laura Kelly of Kansas dared the state's Republican House Speaker to hold a vote.

"If he thinks that he can kill him, bring him on," Ms. Kelly, a soft-spoken moderate Democrat, said in an interview in her sprawling office at the state Capitol in Topeka.

The next morning, in his own office next to the House, Speaker Dan Hawkins showed no signs of giving in. . He described Medicaid expansion as “almost like the biggest Ponzi scheme ever.” The same day, a House committee voted against sending Ms. Kelly's bill, derailing the proposal — at least for now.

L he impasse between Ms. Kelly and Mr. Hawkins represented one fight in a bitter political battle playing out in several state capitols over the future of Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor. In Kansas and a handful of Republican-controlled Southern states, supporters of expanding the program under the Affordable Care Act have renewed efforts to overcome long-standing Republican opposition, generating a sense of progress.

Yet neither Ms. Kelly nor supporters of Medicaid expansion elsewhere have managed to advance the legislation far enough to become law, a reflection of the continued political power of conservative ideas about the nature of government-subsidized coverage and who deserves it.

“It’s really the fundamental moral question of where the safety net should be,” said Ty Masterson, Republican president of the Kansas Senate and longtime opponent expansion date. "And the safety net should be on the frail, the elderly, the disabled and all low-income mothers and children."

We are struggling to retrieve the content of the article.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode, please exit and log in to your Times account, or subscribe to the entire Times.