In light of the growing number of Republican governors’ refusals to implement provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the most prominent of which being Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Rick Perry of Texas, it becomes prudent to contemplate the trends of access to care, residents’ health status and the political leanings of individual states across the country. The refusals to implement are rooted in the Supreme Court’s decision that the federal government could not unduly coerce states to follow the Medicaid expansion portion of the Reform by reducing federal funding in those states. This practice was deemed unconstitutional by the current court, however no concerns were raised when the Reagan administration used the very same tactic, reducing transportation funding to states that did not raise their drinking age to 21. The decisions not to implement the law are also based on inaccurate estimates of states’ responsibilities in later years.
Many of those very states that are refusing to implement health care reform are ranked as some of the highest in uninsured residents and rates of obesity. They are some of the unhealthiest states in the country. When compared to these states’ political leanings, questions can be raised about what happens when political ideology takes priority over the health of the general population.
Click the images below to be taken to interactive maps.
Uninsured Americans by State
Obesity Rates by State
2012 Presidential Election
Political Leans by State
Lawsuit Against the Affordable Care Act by State
Additional Articles:
States with Largest Uninsured Populations May Be More Likely to Opt Out of Medicaid
More state leaders considering opting out of Medicaid expansion
What happens if a state opts out of Medicaid, in one chart
_______________________________________






Salon.com
Comments
Nonetheless we do see clearly that there are numerous states with high levels of uninsured and poor health population health status' whose leadership are refusing to implement a health care reform meant to improve access to basic care.
This appears to be based on ideology rather than what would benefit the general population. It is this choice of priorities that is being questioned here not a causal relationship for the current situation. But it is worth asking what impact these choices will have down the road.
I suspect that was true for the residents of many states.
Not saying good or bad. Just the way it is.
Governors are the executives of states. They do what they want in regard to these decisions.
I am sure they are are states that did not sue and there is some citizen in that state that wanted them to.
Did you read the whole Bill? I just got a car insurance bill that when I shopped around I found to be 2 1/2 times the competition. My broker is a relative. I read all the details and I am getting ripped off.
What do I do?
There are things in this bill that are flat out predatorial to the middle class. Congress and their families are exempt from it and there is 30 thousand reasons to questions this bill.
Can you give me 10 reasons you do not like the bill but, think it is a good first step? If you can do that, I know you have truly vetted this proposal and can judge those states and Governors that might be truly looking out for the working class people of their State.
Perhaps we can begin with you providing some specifics for this claim. That way we can judge whether or not the sources of this information have been truly vetted.
I place this back on your shoulders because right from the start you present the false claim that members of Congress and their families are exempt from the reform's requirements.
In addition, the information the states like Texas, Louisiana and Florida are basing their judgments on are also false. Their arguments they use claim the states will be responsible for large percentages of Medicaid down the road when the cap on that is 10%, less than what they're responsible for now (~43%).
As far as my views of the overall law, I have spoken about them in a number of other posts on here and my main site which you are welcome to read through and comment on.
It is hard to understand the argument in favor of private, for-profit health insurers given the history and the incredible cost increases in recent years.
How about fertility costs for those trying to get pregnant but cannot.. Some people in their late forties spend close to a million pumping drugs into their system and it is all covered by insurance. In Massachusetts, it is covered even if unemployed. This is just one example of driving up the costs of care. It sucks if you want a baby but, we should not have to pay because you decided to wait fifteen years past your prime.
There are other examples and guess what, these will all go away one these costs spiral out of control
"questions can be raised", on just about anything, isn't that correct? It doesn't mean the person asking the question has any knowledge to add to the subject, and maybe it could mean that a political adversary, for example, continuously throws "questions" against the wall hoping something might stick. Worst case if you can get the media to focus for a few days, your a winner.
When you don't have a record, the first rule is "diversions."
In your research on why several States are opting out of the Medicaid program, have you seen any numbers as to the effectiveness of Medicaid, it's costs, the inability of so many patients to find doctors for primary care?
Might it be that Medicaid is a failed program, that too many doctors will not see Medicaid patients who than are back in the ER for healthcare.
No one knows what is in all of those 13,000 pages added to the AFA. What surprises are in store for the public for business, for the insurance companies, doctors?
Only today HHS issued a new directive that apparently guts the successful Welfare Reform Act signed by President Clinton! What else is this Administration going to do to destroy whatever is left of the balance sheet of the country.
http://www.heritage.org/
- James from www.4autoinsurancequote.com