scholarly journals Shifting threats and rhetoric: how Republican governors framed Medicaid expansion

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 496-508
Author(s):  
Phillip M. Singer ◽  
Michael Rozier

AbstractThe 2012 Supreme Court decision in National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius gave states the option to adopt the Medicaid expansion as part of the Affordable Care Act. Many states, especially those under Republican control, have since grappled with their decision to implement the expansion. We conduct a comparative analysis of how Republican governors framed their stance on the Medicaid expansion. We analyze public statements on the Medicaid expansion published in two major in-state newspapers from all Republican governors from June 2012 through June 2018. In total we collected, coded and analyzed 3277 statements from 66 newspapers. Several key themes emerge from our analysis. While every Republican governor used oppositional framing as part of their rhetorical response to the Medicaid expansion, the policy had a destabilizing effect on the previously unified opposition to health reform. We find that Republican framing split after the results of the 2012 election and that overall Republican governors shifted towards more supportive framing prior to the 2016 presidential election. Republican governors transformed how they framed their stance towards Medicaid expansion after Donald Trump was elected in 2016, with both supportive and oppositional moral-based framing of expansion increasing. These findings inform how policymakers use rhetoric to support their stance on controversial policies in a hyper-partisan and polarized political environment.

Author(s):  
Colleen Grogan ◽  
Christina M. Andrews

Medicaid’s intergovernmental design with a generous federal matching rate and substantial state discretion has fostered gradual but steady expansions of the program over time. Gradual growth creates a favorable political environment in which each expansion creates a political constituency for Medicaid—among provider groups and enrollees—who then fight against retrenchment. Yet, as program expenditures continue to increase, especially during fiscally distressed times, the partisan divide over the future direction of Medicaid becomes more stark. These are the political dynamics that will define how states struggle with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion and also how states attempt to provide long-term care financing and services under their Medicaid programs.


2016 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 580-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Rowland ◽  
Barbara Lyons

Medicaid coverage matters for millions of low-income Americans, and especially for those with ongoing and serious health challenges. A source of comprehensive and affordable coverage, Medicaid has long been a cornerstone of federal and state efforts to improve access and health outcomes for very poor and medically vulnerable populations. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) leveraged Medicaid's role in serving the poor to broaden the program's reach to millions of low-income uninsured adults, and positioned the program as a fundamental component of the newly established continuum of public and private coverage. Looking ahead, if more states embrace the Medicaid expansion, there is the potential to build on this progress to significantly reduce the number of uninsured Americans.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gordon Pennycook ◽  
David Gertler Rand

The 2020 U.S. Presidential Election saw an unprecedented number of false claims alleging election fraud and arguing that Donald Trump was the actual winner of the election. Here we report a survey exploring belief in these false claims that was conducted three days after Biden was declared the winner. We find that a majority of Trump voters in our sample – particularly those who were more politically knowl-edgeable and more closely following election news – falsely believed that election fraud was wide-spread and that Trump won the election. Thus, false beliefs about the election are not merely a fringe phenomenon. We also find that Trump conceding or losing his legal challenges would likely lead a ma-jority of Trump voters to accept Biden’s victory as legitimate, although 40% said they would continue to view Biden as illegitimate regardless. Finally, we found that levels of partisan spite and endorsement of violence were equivalent between Trump and Biden voters.


Author(s):  
V. Iordanova ◽  
A. Ananev

The authors of this scientific article conducted a comparative analysis of the trade policy of US presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump. The article states that the tightening of trade policy by the current President is counterproductive and has a serious impact not only on the economic development of the United States, but also on the entire world economy as a whole.


2021 ◽  
pp. 000276422110112
Author(s):  
Meredith Neville-Shepard

This essay illustrates how Donald Trump engaged in what I call “populist crisis rhetoric” throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and coinciding 2020 U.S. presidential campaign cycle. By performing a critical rhetorical analysis of textual fragments surrounding how Trump addressed the preventative measure of mask-wearing, I show how he rejected the role of comforter-in-chief and instead opted for the role of victim-in-chief. Specifically, turning the bare face into a litmus test of Trump loyalism, his rhetoric suggested that masks threatened masculinity and functioned as a form of anti-choice bodily oppression.


The Forum ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 627-650
Author(s):  
Jamie L. Carson ◽  
Spencer Hardin ◽  
Aaron A. Hitefield

Abstract The 2020 elections brought to an end one of the most divisive and historic campaigns in the modern era. Former Vice President Joe Biden was elected the 46th President of the United States with the largest number of votes ever cast in a presidential election, defeating incumbent President Donald Trump in the process. The record turnout was especially remarkable in light of the ongoing pandemic surrounding COVID-19 and the roughly 236,000 Americans who had died of the virus prior to the election. This article examines the electoral context of the 2020 elections focusing on elections in both the House and Senate. More specifically, this article examines the candidates, electoral conditions, trends, and outcomes in the primaries as well as the general election. In doing so, we provide a comprehensive descriptive analysis of the climate and outcome of the 2020 congressional elections. Finally, the article closes with a discussion of the broader implications of the election outcomes on both the incoming 117th Congress as well as the upcoming 2022 midterm election.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document