Director’s philosophy stands apart from experts about the value of expanding Medicaid

You know you’re in trouble if your boss questions your very existence.
So when Jon Hamdorf, director of Medicaid for Kansas, says he struggles with the concept of whether health care is a right or a privilege, that’s not a good sign. Medicaid, after all, is a program designed to help the poor, the elderly poor and the disabled get the health care they need.
Hamdorf came clean at a Sept. 17 forum in Lenexa, where the panelists, save Hamdorf, extolled the virtues of Kansas expanding Medicaid so that those living on incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty line would receive its benefits. Today, a family of four in Kansas cannot receive Medicaid benefits if its annual income exceeds $9,063. If Kansas expanded Medicaid, its umbrella would provide benefits up until that family’s income exceeded $34,000.
Kansas is one of 17 states yet to expand Medicaid, even though the federal government would provide 93 percent of the funding.
Instead of endorsing Medicaid expansion, Hamdorf equivocated, saying he thought talk about its  many benefits were “micro issues” and that the “macro issue” of the day should be a philosophical discussion on whether the role of the government is to provide such assistance. And this is why there’s a growing resistance among conservatives to the government funding of safety net programs such as Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance, and a host of assistance programs that benefit needy children. It boils down to whether we think, collectively, our taxes should help cushion the retirements of our senior citizens as well as help the poor and disabled with food, shelter and healthcare, or should those things be the domain of the privileged.
If the latter is the case, then that leaves a lot of people in a world of hurt.
According to the Federal Reserve, if faced with an unexpected cost of $400, four of 10 adults would not be able to cover it. To further weaken social programs such as Medicare/Medicaid would endanger vast segments of our population.
In most modern-day countries, health care is regarded as a right and is fully funded by some form of state-run program. The 2013 Affordable Care Act was a baby step in that direction, but got derailed when lawmakers took the low road and kept the system based on private profit, not public good.

WE CAN determine the path of such programs by electing those who believe  a purpose of government is the welfare of its people.
— Susan Lynn