Obama to South Dakota on Medicaid expansion: our way or the highway.

Compromise is apparently a dirty word in Washington. And we wonder why they’re in such a mess. The latest example is the Obama administration’s refusal to allow South Dakota to cover those under the poverty line under Medicaid:

In a conference call late Tuesday afternoon involving legislative leaders from both parties and federal Medicaid chief Cindy Mann, South Dakota officials were told their request for a partial Medicaid expansion would not be allowed.

“Where we had maybe a glimmer of hope through some other channels that they would be willing to look at a compromise that would be good for South Dakota, they apparently decided at levels higher up that they would not be willing to compromise, and it would be full expansion … take it or leave it,” said call participant Sen. Tim Rave, the Senate Republican leader.

Gov. Dennis Daugaard asked the federal government in late January for permission to expand Medicaid to cover people earning up to 100 percent of the poverty line — $11,670 for an individual or $23,850 for a family of four. About 26,000 uninsured South Dakotans earn less than that.

Read it all here.

7 Replies to “Obama to South Dakota on Medicaid expansion: our way or the highway.”

  1. Is Hickey for real?

    stevehickey @stevehickey
    “I’m givin up Libertarian…


  2. David Tennessen

    This is an example of a Washington DC approach. It is top down, one size fits all. Daugaard’s approach was a common sense South Dakota solution that would have aided those truly in need.

    ACA has had numerous unilateral changes implemented by the Administration. Why not this common sense compromise?

  3. anonymous

    The governor had plenty of other, more reasonable, and already accepted alternatives that have been enacted in other states from which to choose in order to craft something that would work. Insteaad, he chose to go with something that has already failed once, and he had to expect that it would fail again:
    “While a number of states have been given flexibility by the federal government to approach Medicaid expansion differently, none has been allowed to go only partway as Daugaard wants. Additionally, an almost identical request from Daugaard a year ago was rejected. The governor had hoped federal officials would be more receptive this time.”

  4. springer

    It’s OK for Obama to grant extensions, waivers, etc to anyone that would be politically expedient for the 2014 election, but it’s not OK to do something that would truly benefit some of the people? We get it, dear leader. Actually, I’m not for any expansion of Medicaid as the entitlement society is completely out of whack, but a compromise such as Daugaard’s makes sense if you favor expansion.

  5. Winston

    Last October, when the website for the AC Act was first launched with all of its problems, resulting in only 24 South Dakotans signing-up for health insurance under the new public health exchanges during its first three or two weeks of availability, this website posed the question in the form of a blog piece as whether “Obamacare” was worth it. Now four months later, the DWC has the audacity to complain that Medicaid will not be extended to some South Dakotans under the auspices of the ACA because of a Obama administration decision concerning partial compliance and participation, which was never a part of the law..?…… Please, will the real DWC please stand-up!…… :