Republican's shown Medicaid expansion "blocking" efforts are solidly based upon evidence of high end budgetary cost coverage from each state - the three states: SC (rich in ag beauty), TX (rich much in the way of cattle land ranching), and FL (rich in mini-businesses - extended thruout USA/Int'l) are not what is truly rich in land development resources - they build upon extending acreage to what should be "clean" & established companies w/paid appropriate taxation dollars into states - the states continue to be restructured for building processes.

Although the Medicaid issue is critical to human health & development, there have been other approaches to assisting the lower economic level status, ie, AMA has for a length of time offered benefits to MD's who settle within lower SES level & establish independent Medicare extended coverage services or clinic style medical services which is also govt'l price covered - the lower s-e-s population (income coverage based) is offered a higher end Medicare coverage, ie blue & green cards - again a given that the Medicaid is extended to the extreme lower-end s-e-s population level.

Should each USA state find extra yearly budgetary $'s to be allocated based upon income $ budgetary increases then by all means the govt'l budget should consider Medicaid increase benefit inclusions - however, states must also consider their population's taxation base increases so that the given numbers do not once again forcefully address taxation hikes that "choke" the identified taxpayers.

*FYI: In my college/university researching for teaching purposes time, it was proven that Social Welfare assistance population must be targeted to full employment asap - as well as non-generational dependency - which the USA govt'l has shown to be implemented, returning $'s to the govt'l system for continued & critical development.