Laticia Ambroz explains her Texas Senate District 1 campaign and discusses universal healthcare, public schools, living wages, responsible industry and Texas’s future.

Summary

Texas Senate District 1 candidate Laticia Ambroz frames her campaign around a fundamental test of government: whether it leaves Texas better for children, grandchildren, and working families. In this Texas Democratic Convention interview, she connects that principle to healthcare, schools, wages, environmental responsibility, and public investment.

• Ambroz says government should protect ordinary Texans rather than prioritize corporate profits.

• She supports universal healthcare and challenges the claim that publicly financed care is “free.”

• She argues that eliminating insurance-company middlemen would redirect healthcare dollars toward patients and care.

• She calls for strong public schools, living wages, and responsible industrial growth.

• She says Texas should use its substantial resources to improve residents’ lives and protect the environment.

The interview presents a clear governing philosophy: collect public resources for public purposes and judge policy by its effect on people’s health, opportunity, and future.

Progressive Candidates Need Your Support

To make changes in State Legislatures, the House of Representatives, and our local governments, our progressive candidates need your support. Please give directly to the candidate, not the party consultants. They know their districts and get minimal support.

Support Candidate Here: https://www.ambrozforstatesenate.com/

Premium Content (Complimentary)

Public Resources Must Serve the Public

Laticia Ambroz’s campaign for Texas Senate District 1 begins with a straightforward moral proposition: Texans should leave a better state to their children and grandchildren. That principle becomes meaningful only when government turns it into policy. In this interview, Ambroz identifies healthcare, public education, living wages, responsible economic development, and environmental protection as parts of the same public obligation.

Her healthcare argument strikes at a central misconception. Healthcare never becomes free simply because government finances it. Texans already pay through taxes, premiums, deductibles, copayments, denied claims, medical debt, and prices that include layers of corporate administration. The real question concerns how the system collects and spends that money—and how much value patients receive.

Ambroz argues that profit-seeking insurers stand between patients and care. That criticism reflects a broader debate over administrative complexity and corporate consolidation in American healthcare. A public system would not eliminate every cost, but it could change the incentives: healthcare dollars could support treatment and prevention instead of fragmented billing systems, executive compensation, marketing, and shareholder returns.

Texas makes that debate urgent. The state remains among those that have not adopted the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion. KFF reports that 41 states, including the District of Columbia, have adopted expansion while 10 have not. In non-expansion states, many adults fall into a coverage gap because they earn too much for Medicaid yet too little for Marketplace assistance. That policy choice has direct consequences for families, clinics, and rural hospitals.

Ambroz also connects healthcare to public schools, wages, infrastructure, and the environment. That linkage matters because families do not experience policy in isolated compartments. Low wages make insurance unaffordable. Underfunded schools constrain opportunity. Weak infrastructure limits economic development. Pollution imposes health and financial costs on communities.

Texas possesses the capacity to act. The state comptroller projected a $23.76 billion fiscal 2024–25 ending balance when estimating resources available to the 89th Legislature. That figure does not make every proposal automatically affordable, but it demonstrates that Texas’s debates center on priorities as well as resources. Budgets reveal priorities.

The interview therefore offers voters a defined governing approach. Ambroz says public revenue should return to the public through services and investments that expand security and opportunity. Voters can compare that agenda with the incumbent’s record, examine its costs and implementation details, and decide which direction they want Senate District 1 to take.

Subscribe now

One Time Contribution