Crossposted from Hillbilly Report.

There has been much arguing and gnashing of teeth in the Healthcare argument. Much was made of the CBO assessment that many uninsured would be left out in the final tally of options being considered. One option that makes much sense in insuring the working poor however, deserves careful consideration. The expansion of Medicaid could fill this coverage vacuum.

Some Congressional Democrats are calling for just that in the discussion between expanding Medicaid, or giving subsidies to the poor to in turn give to Big Insurance:

As part of efforts to extend health coverage to millions of uninsured Americans, congressional Democrats are pressing for a major expansion in the state-federal program for the poor and disabled. As a result, Medicaid, which now covers 60 million people, could pick up more than a third of the 46 million uninsured. Those numbers are far from final, given that overhaul legislation is still being written and negotiated.

The disagreement centers on a critical issue: What's the best way to cover impoverished Americans? Is it by expanding Medicaid? Or by providing subsidies for the poor to buy private insurance on new health insurance exchanges to be created by the legislation?

Most Democrats come down squarely on the side of Medicaid, saying it's the most efficient and least expensive way to cover the poor. Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., said the program is "one of the best ways" to make sure lower-income people are covered.

http://www.kentucky.com/963/story/849378.html

Private Insurance has already failed in covering millions of the working poor and even with subsidies, it is doubtful they will ever deal in good faith to bring costs down. Lower costs mean less profit. Medicaid has already proven to be more cost efficient than private insurance.

But of course, as with anything that offers the promise of progress for those who desperately need it Republicans and Corporate Democrats have jumped to the front in opposing it:

Most Republicans, leery about expanding a big government program such as Medicaid, argue that private insurance is better.

Some moderate Democrats agree. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., calls Medicaid a "caste system" that hurts poor people's choice of doctors and the care they receive. Some governors worry that, sooner or later, they'll end up paying for a big chunk of any Medicaid expansion.

And as always, despite all their bluster and Corporate apolegism the Republicans and their Corporate Democrat enablers in this Congress are flat wrong about this too:

In the end, though, Medicaid's role in health legislation may be bolstered by simple math: Studies suggest that enrolling people in the program would be substantially cheaper than giving them subsidies for private insurance.

They march out their numbers that attempt to scare you into supporting the insurance companies that have caused the problem to begin with:

"States are facing a combined budget shortfall of more than $200 billion over the next two years, with rising Medicaid costs as one of the primary drivers," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

However, they fail to tell you that it is actually more expensive to maintain the status-quo of defending Insurance company greed:

Medicaid backers, however, say that program is the better choice — for taxpayers and the enrollees.

"Medicaid is by far the better deal from society's point of view, from the consumer's point of view," said Leighton Ku, a health policy professor at George Washington University's School of Public Health and Health Services.

He said that it would cost up to 30 percent more to put poor people in subsidized private insurance plans rather than in Medicaid.

In the end the Medicaid idea would mean real progress for millions:

Who'd benefit: The expansion would have the biggest impact in states, particularly in the South and West, with high numbers of poor uninsured people and tight Medicaid eligibility standards.

In addition, many states already cover children whose families' incomes are above the poverty level. That means a Medicaid expansion would have a greater impact on poor adults, especially those who don't have children. Currently, six states provide coverage to childless adults, although others provide some limited benefits.

According to an analysis by Avalere Health, a health care consulting firm in Washington, the congressional plans could reduce the number of uninsured people by up to 18 million.

I think it is plain to see that expanding Medicaid to working poor adults is a very good idea. Not only would it be cheaper than relying on private insurance, but it would have an immediate and real impact by covering roughly two-fifths of the uninsured in this country. Of course the Republicans and Corporate Democrats will oppose it because they are bought and paid for. It is time that they dropped their hollow arguments and did the right thing for America. Expanding Medicaid could go a long way in resolving this crisis.