The new head of Louisiana State University’s battered public hospital system acknowledged the obvious recently: Without the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, Louisianians will suffer. If that happens, the state will be to blame.
In a show of partisan solidarity, Gov. Bobby Jindal has said Louisiana will opt out of the Medicaid provision under President Barack Obama’s health care plan.
The governor argues that the federal budget can’t absorb the cost of greater Medicaid spending. On “Meet the Press” in July, he said: “Look, federal dollars aren’t free. Those dollars are coming from us, our children, our grandchildren. We’re borrowing money from China to spend on government programs we can’t afford. The best thing we can do is help people get good-paying jobs instead of giving them federal programs.”
The federal debt is massive, and the White House and Congress need to get a grip on spending. But Jindal’s primary concern should be what is best for his own people — and thousands of them need a way to pay for medical care.
The governor didn’t argue after Hurricane Isaac that the state should forgo aid because the federal government is strapped for cash. Nor should he.
The number of Louisianians without health care is at a crisis level as well. About 20.8 percent of residents — 938,000 people — didn’t have health insurance in 2011. Only Texas and Nevada had a higher proportion of uninsured. Jindal’s administration could cut into that number significantly by accepting the reimbursement in the Affordable Care Act — and should do so.
Dr. Frank Opelka, who took over the LSU hospital system last month, said: “I don’t know how we can handle the underinsured without strong consideration of the Medicaid expansion. I can’t do the math and get it to come out where it works.”
The math doesn’t work. Jindal should acknowledge that and take the money being offered.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less