(Syndicated to Kansas newspapers July 11, 2016)
It’s pretty standard for conservative candidates for the Legislature—mostly Republicans—to blast “Obamacare” as they have labeled the Affordable Care Act. It’s pretty catchy in some circles.
The idea of forcing people to buy health insurance which subsidizes health insurance, thereby making more health care available to the poor who can’t afford it, does sound a little…well…heavy-handed to many.
But the upcoming session of the Legislature which hundreds of Kansans are campaigning to join may be the first in which chances are just a little less than even Kansas might jump into the ACA and its expansion of health care for the poor. No, not good, but at least a little less dismal than this year.
Last session, recall, House Speaker Ray Merrick, R-Stilwell, pulled four Republicans off the House Health and Human Services Committee because they liked the idea of using the ACA to expand eligibility for Medicaid (in Kansas we now catchily call it “KanCare”).
And so Republican Reps. Susan Concannon, Beloit (who had been vice chair of the committee), Barbara Bollier, Mission Hills, Don Hill, Emporia, and Kevin Jones, Wellsville, were taken off the 17-member committee, making sure that the 13 Republicans on the panel couldn’t join with Democrats to pass an Obamacare expansion bill to the full House.
Merrick isn’t seeking re-election and after this fall’s election, there will be a new House Speaker who will single-handedly make appointments to the Health and Human Services Committee in the House.
In the Senate, well, we’ll see how the elections go…
Practically, though, while in most districts it’s hard to go wrong blasting Obamacare on a strictly partisan basis, outgoing President, Democrat-based and all that, this might just be the year that it comes down to a pocketbook issue and public health care issue for Kansans.
Buy your own health insurance? Or have it provided by your employer?
Most private health insurance premiums have risen in the past year, partly because hospitals take care of the sick and injured…whether those patients have health insurance or not. That’s what hospital emergency rooms do—help whoever shows up.
Now, if all those patients had insurance, private or government-assisted, the hospitals would get paid at least something for delivering that care. Which means that those with private or company-sponsored health insurance don’t have to see their rates rise to help hospitals afford that care they are obligated to offer to those without insurance. For the individual insurance policy, it means lower hikes in rates, and for those with employer-provided health insurance it means rates are lower too, which translates either into continued coverage or coverage at a lower rate that might leave some room for other benefits—like maybe raises.
How’s that sound on the campaign doorstep?
And, that loss of revenue to hospitals from the ACA is severely pinching their budgets and might mean that some either close or dramatically reduce services, which means that some cities and towns might wind up with less hospital service, less health care, and all of that. Losing a hospital and health care services, or putting them an hour’s drive away, isn’t something most Kansans want, and isn’t something most candidates for the Legislature are willing to present as a byproduct of not expanding KanCare through the ACA.
Oh, and don’t forget that Kansans who can’t get health care in some way are shopping at the same stores you shop at, and sending their children to the same schools your children go to, where a sneeze can mean your children come home sniffling.
Wondering about the ACA? Probably worthwhile talking about it with those candidates or their supporters on your doorstep.