ACS National Convention
June 13 - 15, 2013
Washington D.C.
Register Now!

Login:

Medicaid expansion

July 16, 2012
The Tired, Offensive States’ Rights Argument Against Health Care Reform
by Jeremy Leaming

Although it can be argued that the state governors threatening to forgo implementing the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid have a skewed idea of state sovereignty, likely closer to the truth is that most of the governors are carrying on a tawdry tradition of denying help to the most vulnerable.

S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley, Fla. Gov. Rick Scott, La. Gov. Bobby Jindal and Texas Gov. Rick Perry have all vowed that their states will not expand their Medicaid programs to millions of uninsured, even though pursuant to the ACA the federal government will cover most of the costs of implementing the expansion. The New York Times reports that the expansion of Medicaid would add “17 million people to the rolls, accounting for half of all uninsured people expected to gain coverage nationwide.”

All those governors have offered typical, but disingenuous complaints that the federal government is forcing the states to spend money they don’t have. They also predictably paint the federal government as pushing wasteful domestic programs or offering more free things to people.

It is the same tired, offensive and often racially tinged complaint that conservative politicians have been peddling for decades in their nonstop attack on government.

Gov. Scott called the ACA’s Medicaid provision “a massive entitlement expansion,” and Gov. Rick Perry (pictured) who presides over a state with the largest number of uninsured said the Affordable Care Act “would make Texas “a mere appendage of the federal government.”

University of Maryland School of Law professor Sherrilyn Ifill in an opinion piece for CNN said the governors are carrying on a long tradition of not doing a terribly good job of governing.

“These elected leaders are following a longstanding tradition in American politics of Southern states acting against the best interest of their residents,” she writes.

More
Tags:
Economic inequality, Racial justice, Constitutional Interpretation and Change, ACA, Affordable Care Act, Gov. Rick Perry, Gov. Rick Scott, Medicaid expansion, Professor Sherrilyn Ifill, superrich, wealth gap
July 13, 2012
Preserving Freedom with Medicaid Expansion
by Joseph Jerome

After declaring that Texas would not be expanding Medicaid to include millions of uninsured Texans, Gov. Rick Perry insisted that “the real issue here is about freedom.” South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley argued that the Affordable Care Act reveals a federal government that “simply [doesn’t] believe states should be trusted to govern themselves.” Speaking on the Meet the Press, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal invoked the principles of federalism when he suggested universal health care was akin to having Mardi Gras in Vermont.

This rhetoric reveals a profoundly state-centric view on what freedom means, and while the Tenth Amendment certainly speaks to the rights of states vis-à-vis the federal government, it also talks about the rights of individual citizens. “If anything, the Tenth Amendment recognizes potentially expansive federal power,” Professor Steven Schwinn wrote on SCOTUSblog, rebutting “states’ rights” arguments against the Affordable Care Act.

The problem is that “we are all hypocrites” when it comes to power struggles between the state and federal governments, Professor Garrett Epps explains. “The basic view of ‘states' rights’ is that they extend to any policy that the speaker thinks will go his or her way at the state level,” he writes.

Though Gov. Perry (pictured) has long been a “states’ right stalwart,” he too falls into Epps’s trap. The governor supports federal efforts to restrict marriage equality and ban abortions, and the real issue was not freedom when $17 billion in federal stimulus money was used to balance Texas’ budget. When it comes to the Medicaid expansion, however, millions of Americans in these states must find comfort in being told they will go without health insurance as a matter of principle.

More
Tags:
Supreme Court, Separation of Powers and Federalism, Affordable Care Act, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley, Gov. Paul LePage, Gov. Rick Perry, Medicaid expansion, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, states' rights, Tenth Amendment
July 11, 2012
House Republicans’ Obsession with Trashing Health Care Reform
by Jeremy Leaming

The right continues to wage a tiresome campaign against even modest efforts to repair the nation’s tattered social safety net.

Although only symbolic, since it won’t go anywhere in the Senate, the House of Representatives passed a measure to repeal the landmark health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

It was not the first time the House has voted on such a measure. In fact the chamber has voted more than 30 times to repeal the ACA. The right-wing controlled House wants to remind everyone that it cares little about the tens of millions of uninsured Americans.

House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) took to the floor during today’s vote to blast the House leadership’s continued obsession with destroying health care reform.

“If this bill were to pass, insurance companies could once again discriminate against 17 million children with pre-existing conditions. If it were to pass, 30 million Americans would lose their health insurance coverage. It would take away $651 each from 5.3 million seniors in the Medicare ‘donut hole,’ making their prescription drugs more expensive,” Hoyer (pictured) said.

He also noted that “6.6 million young adults under 26 would be forced off their parents’ plans, left to face a tough job market with the added pressure of being uninsured.”

All of the Republican’s repeal bills, as Hoyer highlighted, contained no measures to help the uninsured.

More
Tags:
Economic inequality, Supreme Court, Constitutional Interpretation and Change, ACA, Affordable Care Act, Health Care Reform, Medicaid expansion, National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Obama adminstration, Rep. Steny Hoyer, Spending Power
March 29, 2012
The Roberts Court Dangerously Close to Eroding Institution’s Credibility
Guest Post
By Fazal Khan, a law professor at the University of Georgia specializing in health law. Professor Khan has both law and medical degrees. This post is part of an ACSblog online symposium on oral argument in HHS v. Florida.

On Wednesday afternoon the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether the states can challenge the federal government’s expansion of Medicaid. Representing 26 states that oppose ACA in its entirety, former Solicitor General Paul Clement went first claiming that the federal government is “coercing” states to accept this unwanted expansion of Medicaid. As expected, the “liberal” justices pounced on Paul Clement’s central argument. Whereas Clement seemed very cocksure Tuesday arguing against the minimum coverage provision, on Wednesday he was not as deft in parrying the skeptical attacks from the justices, including Antonin Scalia and the chief justice.

Clement did regain his poise at the end during a strongly delivered (yet still substantively weak) rebuttal. Solicitor General Don Verrilli bounced back admirably after what can be fairly described as a difficult day on Tuesday. He was much more assertive and confident in pushing back against the “conservative” justices and possessed a strong command of the history of Medicaid and previous mandatory expansions of the program which really seem no different than the expansion at issue today.

More
Tags:
Federalism, Supreme Court, Constitutional Interpretation and Change, ACA, ACA Oral Arguments Blogging Symposium, Affordable Care Act, Chief Justice John Roberts, Guest Post, HHS v. Florida, Justice Elena Kagan, Medicaid expansion, minimum coverage provision, Paul Clement, Professor Fazal Khan, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., the Roberts Court
March 22, 2012
What’s at Stake in SCOTUS Review of Medicaid Program
Guest Post

By Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. This post is part of an ACSblog online symposium around oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act.

As we approach the oral arguments before the Supreme Court the week of March 26, most attention has focused on the constitutionality of the minimum coverage requirement. The question of whether or not Congress had the authority to impose this requirement under its delegated powers to regulate interstate commerce, levy taxes, and enact necessary and proper laws has been the focus of Affordable Care Act ligation since the day the law was enacted.

Yet the Court will also hear arguments on an even more important issue — whether the ACA’s expansion of the Medicaid program is constitutional. The Medicaid program is jointly funded by the federal and state government and administered by the states subject to federal guidelines. It was begun in 1965 as a program to cover poor aged, blind, and disabled persons and families with dependent children. Medicaid has expanded over the years to cover more lower-income Americans. The ACA expands it once again, this time to cover adults with incomes at or below 133 percent of poverty beginning on January 1, 2014.

More
Tags:
Fidelity to the Constitution, Commerce clause, Supreme Court, Constitutional Interpretation and Change, Economic, Workplace and Environment Regulation, ACA Oral Arguments Blogging Symposium, Affordable Care Act, Guest Post, Health Care Reform, Medicaid expansion, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act