Across the nation, individual state governments are making a choice between ObamaCare and RepubliCare, based on whether or not they accept, expanded Medicaid, ObamaCare’s method of providing health care to the very poor, at federal expense. I’m sorry to say that far too many state governments under Republican regimes are putting their extreme views ahead of the needs of their citizens.
The refusal by about half the states to expand Medicaid will leave millions of poor people ineligible for government-subsidized health insurance under President Obama’s health care law even as many others with higher incomes receive federal subsidies to buy insurance.
Starting next month, the administration and its allies will conduct a nationwide campaign encouraging Americans to take advantage of new high-quality affordable insurance options. But those options will be unavailable to some of the neediest people in states like Texas, Florida, Kansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Georgia, which are refusing to expand Medicaid.
More than half of all people without health insurance live in states that are not planning to expand Medicaid.
People in those states who have incomes from the poverty level up to four times that amount ($11,490 to $45,960 a year for an individual) can get federal tax credits to subsidize the purchase of private health insurance. But many people below the poverty line will be unable to get tax credits, Medicaid or other help with health insurance… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <NY Times>
Here is a map I found of where every state stands on Medicaid Expansion, but they did not reflect that Florida’s legislature is blocking Florida’s participation. Coloring those that refuse red is poetically accurate. If you follow the link, they also have an interactive version of the map.
Via: The Advisory Board Company
This is a perfect example of how the pro-death party offers the RepubliCare Death Benefit to those who cannot pay. Alan Grayson was right.
To do it, 
…After the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling freed corporations — including nonprofits organized under sections 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) — to spend money directly on political campaigns, 501(c)(4) spending on politics soared from an infinitesimal amount in 2006 to $294 million in the 2012 election. Nonprofits, unlike political committees and campaigns, are not required to disclose their donors, and the surge in their spending has raised concerns among lawmakers and campaign-finance watchdogs that groups are improperly claiming tax-exempt status when their primary purpose is electioneering. 
