Each election season, Wisconsin draws reporters from around the world eager to dissect the views of voters in a state that is increasingly seen as not only a bellwether for national trends, but a political battleground on which the fate of the nation depends.
Yet despite our reputation as a battleground state, there is a surprising amount of agreement among Wisconsinites on a key issue of our day: health insurance. Over two-thirds of voters in our state support expanding eligibility for BadgerCare, the federal-state program that covers nearly 1.3 million low-income and disabled Wisconsinites, including 3 in 8 children.
Polling from last fall suggests that seven in ten Wisconsinites favor lowering the costs of what residents pay in healthcare costs and ensuring that all Wisconsin residents have access to affordable, comprehensive health-insurance coverage. That includes majorities of voters who identify as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.
Understandably, Wisconsinites ––who in 2023 alone racked up more than $731 million in medical debt –– generally prefer policies which will reduce their skyrocketing healthcare costs. But one could be forgiven for not noticing just how much agreement there is among Wisconsinites. After all, Republican members of the Badger State’s congressional delegation have tethered themselves to the “Big Beautiful Bill,” a nickname whose absurdity only serves to distract from its contents.
To pay for extensions to tax cuts whose beneficiaries are primarily the wealthiest Americans, the legislation would cause roughly 16 million people across the country to lose health coverage by 2034. What does that mean for Wisconsin? Within ten years, roughly 96,000 fewer people in our state will have health insurance coverage for two reasons.
First, the end of premium tax credits and changes to the Affordable Care Act’s marketplace rules will cause at least 59,000 enrollees to lose coverage. For those that remain in the marketplace, premiums will skyrocket. In Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District –– currently represented by U.S. Rep. Derek Van Orden –– premiums for a 60-year-old couple with a combined annual income of $82,000 will increase by over 300%.
Second, due to changes in Medicaid policy –– namely the introduction of paperwork requirements that demand monthly recertification of employment status –– at least 37,000 Wisconsinites will also lose coverage. In fact, the real number could be far higher according to recent reports from the state.
The vast majority of these coverage losses will occur not because those people aren’t working: 73% of adults on Medicaid in Wisconsin are employed. Rather, as shown in states like Arkansas which briefly implemented Medicaid work requirements several years ago, over 18,000 people lost coverage in less than a year due to administrative hurdles deliberately designed to be difficult to clear.
These are not work requirements, strictly speaking. Nor, as the Congressional Budget Office has shown, do they have any meaningful impact on the number of people in the workforce. They are simply more red tape.
Their supporters in Congress often claim that work requirements are meant only to eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse” from the program, not to disenroll eligible people. But this is an artful dodge. They are counting on the new Medicaid provisions to result in massive disenrollment; as the legislative math works out, massive dis-enrollments are necessary to generate the level of spending cuts needed to pay for tax cuts that primarily advantage the wealthy.
Republican congressional leaders will also cite public support for work requirements in a recent statewide advisory referendum. This too is a dodge. Unlike many other states, Wisconsin does not require that legislative referenda be accompanied by information on the effects of proposed policy changes.
Vague wording on advisory ballot measures thus allows legislators to elicit their preferred response from voters without forcing them to confront the tradeoffs. Voters are shown only one side of the deal, promises of personal responsibility and cost savings, while the real consequences, like loss of coverage and increased red tape, remain hidden.
If this assault on Wisconsin’s health care succeeds, it will not represent the preferences of our closely divided electorate. The deeper one digs into the data, and into conversations in diners, clinics, and union halls across this state, the more it becomes clear: People want health care that’s there when they need it, that doesn’t bankrupt them, and that doesn’t force them to navigate a labyrinth of paperwork.
They’re asking not for miracles but to be treated with dignity. That’s worth fighting for, and something out elected leaders should not only respect, but champion.
Philip Rocco is an associate professor of political science at Marquette University and the author of “Obamacare Wars: Federalism, State Politics, and the Affordable Care Act.”
