The key to passing Medicaid expansion may not necessarily be our polarized legislature, but voters themselves, especially in small town and rural Kansas. But how much do average Kansans honestly care about expansion, and how much do they prioritize what their communities might gain from it? Maybe less than you think, which might help explain why Topeka is gridlocked on this issue.

Most polling over time shows that Kansans support expansion. For example, the fall 2017 Kansas Speaks survey showed that Kansans supported “expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act” 69 percent to 30 percent—typical numbers in Kansas polls. The exception is one recent poll from a conservative organization that produced 54 percent opposition after crafting their survey questions to make expansion look unattractive.

Unfortunately, no public poll of Kansans has asked how much they actually care about expansion or prioritize it versus other issues. The gut sentiment of most Kansans may be to support expansion, but we do not know the strength of those opinions, or how persuadable they are to opposing expansion. Big unknowns.

One key argument of expansion advocates is that Medicaid expansion would particularly benefit rural communities since the uninsured are often more rural and expansion dollars would benefit struggling rural hospitals. But one pattern in surveys is that rural residents typically support expansion less than suburban and urban residents, and are often pretty divided on the issue.

Elections reflect this.

In 2018, Nebraska, Utah and Idaho voters expanded Medicaid. These states in polls are typically more Republican and conservative than Kansas. If voters there passed expansion, Kansans probably would, too. In all three, though, rural communities mostly opposed expansion. It passed because of suburban and urban voters.

In Kansas, Independence and Fort Scott have experienced hospital closures. However, voters in both often prefer anti-expansion politicians. They backed anti-expansion Kris Kobach strongly in 2018 over pro-expansion Laura Kelly, supporting him as strongly as they supported anti-expansion Sam Brownback in 2014.

When the Kansas state House voted recently to expand Medicaid, anti-expansion votes skewed more toward rural legislators whose communities could benefit more from expansion. Why? Some legislators may feel safe opposing expansion if they believe that constituents will not punish them. That could also explain why conservative leadership blocks expansion votes if they feel that they have nothing to fear.

Barring some grand bargain in Topeka, how does Kansas eventually pass expansion? Advocates bear part of the burden. They should assess how effective their efforts have been. If many Kansans, especially in rural communities, are not voting based on this issue, then how effectively have advocates communicated the benefits and importance of expansion?

Politicians, especially pro-expansion moderate Republicans, also have some burden. Because of changing demographics between the parties, Democrats are increasingly a suburban to urban party, whereas Republicans are increasingly a rural to suburban party. All things equal, Democrats are more likely to defeat Republicans, moderate or conservative, in suburban than in rural districts.

For expansion advocates to replace rural anti-expansion politicians, that probably has to occur in Republican primaries where issues often matter more since party is not a factor. However, moderate Republicans leave many rural conservatives unchallenged in primaries, perhaps thinking that rural voters are too conservative to elect moderates when in fact many pro-expansion moderates represent rural districts.

If voters, especially in rural communities, are not invested in expansion or offered attractive candidates for their palates, then elections will not produce the right mix in Topeka to break its gridlock. Ultimately, most Kansans may support expansion, but they must truly invest in the issue for that preference to become policy.

Patrick R. Miller is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Kansas.

By EDWARD CROSS
Kansas Independent Oil & Gas Association

The next generation of Americans will be challenged to expand and maintain our nation’s energy abundance and global energy leadership. Currently, America’s oil and natural gas industry is meeting record consumer demand and leading the world in production, all while driving emissions to their lowest level in nearly seven decades.

Today, oil and natural gas supply nearly 65% of all U.S. energy. Oil supplies 97% of U.S. transport needs and natural gas supplies 34% of U.S. electricity. Oil and natural gas support over 10.3 million jobs in the U.S. including over 118,000 Kansas jobs. In addition, the latest EPA data shows total U.S. CO2 emissions decreased nearly 14%, while methane emissions were reduced by 4% since 2005. Meanwhile, U.S. oil and natural gas production increased more than 80% and 51% respectively. The oil and natural gas industry has proven that over the long-term, it is possible to lead in energy production and environmental stewardship.

We applaud President Trump’s commitment to America’s energy leadership, which has the power to unify Republicans and Democrats in a divided Congress to put up some major wins for the American people.

Debate continues across the country on our nation’s energy future. Few doubt that energy has improved lives and enabled human progress. Yet one of the biggest challenges facing the world is the polarized debate over the future of energy. Facts and economics are too often replaced with assertions and emotions. Discussion about fossil fuels and alternative energy sources often degenerate into a battle to delegitimize the other side. This is a recipe for inaction. And it keeps billions of people trapped in energy poverty. The world expects and deserves better.

A new energy poll released earlier this year indicates what Americans think about U.S. oil and natural gas. Key poll results include:

• 83% see oil and natural gas as important to the future
• 78% of voters support increased production of oil and natural gas resources
• 84% support increased development of the country’s energy infrastructure
• 77% support energy policies that the oil and natural gas industry advocates: a secure supply of abundant, affordable, available energy.
• 75% support the role that natural gas are playing in reducing greenhouse gas emissions
• 90% see personal value in oil and natural gas

Clearly, Americans support developing domestic energy resources and believe that can be done in a way protective of our environment. Policymakers at all levels should pursue energy policies that drives economic growth, lower costs for consumers, protects the environment, increases American competitiveness, and uses our considerable energy resources as a way to lift people up.

The U.S. currently has a better, more sensible approach to energy development than any other country in the world, both short-term and long-term. Where government policy has been absent, free markets have filled the void with great success.

The energy policy choices our nation makes today are among the most important and far-reaching policy decisions we will make in the 21st century. If we are to continue our nation’s positive energy trends, we must implement energy policies based on current reality and our potential as an energy leader. Too often, energy policy discussions are dominated by the ill-informed whose contributions to the discussions do little to educate and much to misinform.

As the oil and gas industry has shown, there is a better way. Just a few years ago, no one would have imagined the U.S. could increase production of oil and natural gas while cutting greenhouse emissions, which are now near 25-year lows. By focusing on more efficient use of energy, it is possible to lower emissions without imposing even more environmental restrictions.

An American energy policy that values innovation over regulation can turn energy policy challenges into great opportunities for economic growth and energy security. This approach is not just good business, it’s good stewardship and a much better strategy for improving the quality of life for all.

The key going forward is to avoid placing unnecessary political or legal obstacles in the way of innovation and expansion. That’s a prescription for economic prosperity and a cleaner environment.

We should set aside the acrimony and division that has marked too much of past national energy policy discussions and work together as one nation on a positive forward-looking energy future. American energy policy should focus on what’s important: American jobs, American energy security, and American global energy leadership. We need a national energy policy based on science, the free market, and entrepreneurial spirit. Those who act on our behalf at all levels of government should use those principles as the foundation for their energy policy decisions.