Having to decide between healthcare and paying other bills?

Well, Brian Kemp just doesn’t seem to care.

Kemp refuses to expand Medicaid, turning his back on three billion dollars of Federal money.



Atlanta Journal Constitution, September 11, 2018 Kemp opposes expanding Medicaid: “Kemp: Opposes expanding Medicaid but supports increasing rural hospital tax credit program and seeking federal waivers to help stabilize insurance premiums."

[Abrams’ ] viewpoints on health care contrast sharply with those of Kemp. He is against Medicaid expansion and supports the lawsuit by 20 attorneys general — including Chris Carr of Georgia — to overturn the Affordable Care Act, also known as the ACA or Obamacare. That suit is being heard in federal court in Texas. [Macon Telegraph, 9/14/18]

KEMP: Medicaid costs too much and  fails to deliver for  hardworking Georgians. Taking money away from public safety and education to expand up a failed government program will only make things worse. [Georgia Health News]

That’s eight million dollars we’re losing every day in Georgia.  











That money could recruit new doctors and nurses,

Keep hospitals open.

And create more jobs.

Georgia Ready to Close Coverage Gap [Georgia Budget and Policy Institute, 1/11/18] https://gbpi.org/2018/georgia-ready-close-coverage-gap/

The federal government covers up to 90 percent of the cost for states to expand income eligibility, she noted. That amounts to about $3 billion each year in federal dollars coming back to the state to pay for health care. [Georgia Health News, 5/17/2018]

Why IS Brian Kemp dead set against

expanding Medicaid?

Sure doesn’t seem like he’s looking out for

Georgians one bit.

Resarch data:

[Brian Kemp opposes expanding Medicaid and accepting three billion dollars of Federal money.]


Paid for by


[Voted to remove essential protections from health insurance plans]

In 2005 Kemp voted for Senate passage of SB 174.  [Vote #212, 3/11/05, Passed 31-21, Kemp: Y]

The day after the vote the AJC reported:

Health insurers could offer policies that don't cover some medical procedures and drugs currently mandated by state law under legislation approved Friday by the Georgia Senate.

Senate Bill 174, pushed by Sen. Cecil Staton (R-Macon), was approved 31-21 over the strong objection of several women legislators and now heads to the House. Critics say it would make optional some coverage now required, including women's contraceptives, mastectomy treatment, psychologist, chiropractic and optometric coverage, prescriptions for inhalers along with coverage for certain types of anti-cancer drug therapy.

Staton and supporters argued that it wouldn't affect large companies and others who self-insure their employees, or the 2 million on state health care programs. They also said it would make it easier for small businesses to offer scaled-down health coverage to more employees. Currently, supporters said, healthcoverage is too expensive in part because of health mandates that insurers are forced to offer.

"Many [businesses] are being forced to drop coverage because of mandates," Staton said. "This will provide coverage for those who can't afford Cadillac coverage."

But the measure was opposed by Democrats and a few Republicans who complained that it took benefits away from Georgians, particularly women. Some of the most vocal opposition to the Republican bill came from GOP Sen. Renee Unterman of Buford, who told her colleagues it would hurt the party politically with women.

"It's a shame for Republican men to be in here doing this," said Unterman, a former nurse. "It's a shame what we're doing. This has not been thought out enough."

Another Republican, Sen. Seth Harp (R-Columbus), called the bill a "stinking dead horse." Sen. Horacena Tate (D-Atlanta) told supporters, "You are turning back the hands of time by doing what you are doing."

Many of the mandates were approved during the 1990s, when states across the country increased the types of coverage insurers were required to offer. Women legislators led the effort, and they complained that their male colleagues often dragged their feet about adding coverage that helped women.

[AJC, 3/12/05]