Skip to main content

It's not unusual for part of a political narrative to be over-simplified to better fit the whole, but when a Republican governor proposes using federal funds from Medicaid expansion under Obamacare for private health insurance instead only if the federal government agrees to restrictions they want to put on the Medicaid program, reporting that as proposing Medicaid expansion under Obamacare is not an over-simplification, it's a falsehood. But that is Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett's Medicaid proposal, and MSNBC has nonetheless reported it as Medicaid expansion under Obamacare on multiple occasions.

Governor Corbett's Medicaid restriction proposal is the most conservative alternative to Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare) in the United States. Arkansas recently became the first state to get approval from the federal government to spend Medicaid expansion funds from Obamacare on private health insurance, allowing those who would have been newly eligible for Medicaid to shop for private health insurance on the new state-based insurance exchanges. Of course that's better than a state completely refusing the Medicaid expansion funds for any kind of health insurance for its uninsured people, but it's not the same as Medicaid expansion under Obamacare.

The amount of money a state receives for Medicaid expansion or an alternative to it doesn't change depending on the particular plan. Since private health insurance is more expensive than Medicaid, using the funds on private plans rather than the public Medicaid program means you can't give as many people health insurance. The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center has estimated that Medicaid expansion under Obamacare would allow 600,000 - 800,000 currently uninsured people to get on the program.

According to Corbett's own estimates, his Medicaid expansion alternative would cover up to 520,000 people. So there would be at least 80,000 and as many as 280,000 people who would get public health insurance if Corbett went with Medicaid expansion but will remain uninsured even if Corbett's alternative is approved. That number could be even higher if Corbett's plan doesn't enroll the maximum of 520,000 people.

And that's just the part of Corbett's plan that's similar to the Arkansas plan. Corbett has the most conservative alternative to Medicaid expansion in the country because in addition to insisting on insuring fewer people to avoid having the government be the insurer (gasp!), he is only willing to do even that much if the federal government allows him to add restrictions to the state's current Medicaid program, kicking some people off of it.

I think the hostage-taking comparison is way over-done in political discourse, but since health insurance is a life-or-death issue for so many people, I'm okay with using it here. Corbett is holding the 520,000 uninsured people who would be eligible for his plan hostage, insisting that they remain uninsured unless he's allowed to take Medicaid away from an as-yet-unknown number of Pennsylvanians. Sorry, you have to lose your government-run public health insurance or hundreds of thousands of others like you will remain uninsured.

According to Mary Wilson of WITF:

The proposal includes replacing Medicaid co-pays with monthly premiums that will range from zero to 25 dollars a month per person based on a recipient's income. The governor also wants to require working-age Medicaid recipients, with some undefined exceptions, to show they're looking for work or getting job training.

A separate program extending private health insurance to low-income Pennsylvanians will hinge on federal approval of such reforms.

If you can't afford a co-pay, you can't use your insurance to go get health care right away, but you're still insured, so you can go as soon as you can afford the co-pay. If you can't afford a premium, you lose your health insurance altogether. For people living paycheck-to-paycheck, that means the constant threat of losing their health insurance looming over them if they can't pay their Medicaid premium. As if that's not bad enough, the more frightening thing to me here are the "undefined exceptions" for the work-search requirements.

First, it says the work-search requirements will be for working-age Medicaid recipients, but it doesn't define exactly what that means. People can take smaller Social Security benefits at a younger age or larger Social Security benefits at an older age, so how exactly is working-age defined according to Corbett? How far into your golden years do you have to be for Governor Corbett to not force you to hit the streets looking for work to qualify for Medicaid under his restrictions of it? 60? 62? 65? That's undefined right now.

Another thing that's undefined is what the exceptions for people with mental and physical disabilities will be. How severely disabled will a person need to be to not be forced to hit the streets looking for work to qualify for Medicaid under Corbett's restrictions? What kind of documentation will they need to prove their mental and physical disabilities? These are restrictions that would undoubtedly reduce the number of people on Medicaid in Pennsylvania.

But even for people old and disabled enough for Governor Corbett to abide them getting health insurance without a work-search requirement, this is not Medicaid expansion under Obamacare, this is the most extreme anti-government alternative to it in the country. It is a Medicaid restriction plan, and that's what it should be called. And yet, MSNBC has used Corbett's new proposal as an example of a Republican governor finally accepting Medicaid expansion under Obamacare as part of a narrative suggesting the policy is inevitable even in the states controlled by Republicans.

The September 24th edition of MSNBC's Politics Nation with Al Sharpton featured a map titled "Republican Governors Cave on Medicaid Expansion":

There's Corbett's head right on Pennsylvania, but no matter what someone on Sharpton's staff read from the AP and interpreted as Corbett accepting Medicaid expansion, Corbett has not caved on it. Say it with me now, everyone: His plan would restrict Medicaid, not expand it. Calling his plan Medicaid expansion under Obamacare is at best a misrepresentation and at worst a lie. They pushed the same misrepresentation or lie the following week on MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner:
Last month, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett became the tenth Republican governor to back the expansion of his state's Medicaid program under the Affordable Care Act.
No. No, he did not. Corbett does not support expanding Medicaid in Pennsylvania as part of Obamacare. Everybody in with me one more time: His plan would restrict Medicaid, not expand it.

I'd like as much as anyone to be able to say Governor Corbett's finally on board with expanding Medicaid under Obamacare in Pennsylvania. But that's simply not the case. Pretending that any Medicaid plan counts as expansion even when it literally does the opposite just to fit a convenient narrative defeats the purpose of advocating for it, because then you're really not. You're kind of advocating against it. If Corbett's Medicaid restriction plan was accepted by the federal government and became a normalized alternative to real Medicaid expansion, it would reduce Medicaid access, replace some of it with private insurance, and leave the rest of the people uninsured. That's not momentum making Medicaid expansion seem inevitable for even the most conservative governors, that's an attack on Medicaid to shrink its roles.

Full credit goes to MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry and Comedy Central's The Daily Show with Jon Stewart for accurately including Pennsylvania on maps of states that are still rejecting Medicaid expansion in the past couple weeks. You can go here for more wonky details about Corbett's Medicaid restriction plan. And next time you hear someone refer to it as Medicaid expansion, please, refer them to this blog.

Originally posted to ProgressivePatriotPA on Wed Oct 16, 2013 at 12:21 AM PDT.

Also republished by DKos Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh Area Kossacks, Philly Kos, and State & Local ACTION Group.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (11+ / 0-)

    Mere passive citizenship is not enough. Men must be aggressive for what is right if government is to be saved from those who are aggressive for what is wrong. - Fighting Bob La Follette

    by ProgressivePatriotPA on Wed Oct 16, 2013 at 12:21:47 AM PDT

  •  Neither did KKKasick, but he wants to the evil (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    RW racists in the statehouse only like corporate welfare.

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Wed Oct 16, 2013 at 12:55:21 AM PDT

    •  To, but.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      nosotros no somos estúpidos

      by a2nite on Wed Oct 16, 2013 at 01:05:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  At least your governor (assuming you bring that up (0+ / 0-)

      because you live in Ohio) is in favor of it, we're stuck with dead-enders in the State Legislature and the governorship. Also, your spelling reminds me of how I used to always spell Bill-O the KKKlown on the Keith Olbermann fan forum when he was on MSNBC and Current.

      Mere passive citizenship is not enough. Men must be aggressive for what is right if government is to be saved from those who are aggressive for what is wrong. - Fighting Bob La Follette

      by ProgressivePatriotPA on Wed Oct 16, 2013 at 07:04:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  privatizing Medicaid serves FEWER! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    after corporations take a big chunk of the pie.
    It's a ridiculous scam!

    "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

    by MartyM on Wed Oct 16, 2013 at 02:46:34 AM PDT

    •  Yes, but, the Cons have traditionally looked (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      upon the public corporation as a source of free goods (natural resources, legislative preferences, dollars) to take to market for a profit. As they see it, the public corporations took title to resources and assets by force so they could pass them out as favors to supporters.
      It's not a two-way street. The public sector gives and the private sector takes. Persons don't count. People insisting that they govern is a threat that needs to be nipped in the bud.
      Preconceived notions have to be taken into account because they are determinative in how people act. If we put people, who believe that the purpose of public agencies is to distribute benefits to supporters, in charge, then they are going to deliver the goods to their cronies. Don't put the fox in charge of the hen house, if you plan to collect eggs.

      •  I think your overarching point is one I couldn't (0+ / 0-)

        agree with more: we need drastic changes in our campaign finance system to make our form of government more representative of all the people.

        Mere passive citizenship is not enough. Men must be aggressive for what is right if government is to be saved from those who are aggressive for what is wrong. - Fighting Bob La Follette

        by ProgressivePatriotPA on Wed Oct 16, 2013 at 07:07:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What, you don't think the fiscal health of (0+ / 0-)

      corporations is as important as the physical health of people? Your priorities are apparently not the same as Corbett's!

      Mere passive citizenship is not enough. Men must be aggressive for what is right if government is to be saved from those who are aggressive for what is wrong. - Fighting Bob La Follette

      by ProgressivePatriotPA on Wed Oct 16, 2013 at 07:05:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site