On the side of the wonks are people like Ezra Klein and Kevin Drum who are making the case for the financial benefits of expansion. And, interestingly enough, you have firebaggers like emptywheel and David Dayen who are suggesting that logic and financial arguments won't be enough to overcome the root of their resistance - which is all about race. Here's emptywheel:
Already, my anecdotal experience is that a proportion of voters in the states in question claim that the first black President has spent his first term making sure that people of color get more than their fair share of benefits (I think they make this argument based on expanded food stamp usage, though of course the argument is not coherent). The GOP frame for the Medicaid argument will not focus at all on insuring the uninsured. It will not breathe a word of how insured people subsidize uninsured people who use emergency rooms for care. Rather, it will extend and enlarge on this argument about a black President giving free stuff to black people (or Latinos in states like Texas).To me, there's no question that the firebaggers are right when it comes to being honest about what will motivate this resistance. All we have to do is remember that moment when Rick Santorum accidentally slipped and abandoned the dog whistles for a moment on the subject of Medicaid.
The truth is...racism trumps financial concerns. If we hadn't already learned that from the history of Jim Crow days, then this country's willingness to spend billions to incarcerate black people at a truly alarming rate should seal the deal.
But once we know that, we are faced with the challenge of how to make the argument. I'd venture a suggestion that simply calling Gov. Jindal racist when/if he doesn't expand Medicaid is not likely change his mind - nor affect most of the voters in Louisiana.
And that's where the wonk's arguments come in. Imagine laying Ezra Klein's argument out to Gov. Jindal and then asking him why he wants to penalize his state financially. Is he really willing to punish the entire state simply to avoid the prospect that some black and brown people might benefit?
We have to expose the racism that is at the heart of conservative reaction to the social safety net. That's a challenge that will require appeals to both morality and logic.
P.S. Food for thought: Were the Montgomery Bus Boycotts a financial or moral argument? Was non-violent resistance to Jim Crow a financial or moral argument?